The SAT in its order said that “reports submitted by the firm confirmed that kickbacks were given to Gupta by Marsh (a reinsurance broking firm) for diverting the reinsurance business”. In its order dated February 16, the SC said that the counsel has submitted that the two emails relied upon by the other side are only related to certain payments being demanded by Gupta. “But by the same it could not be concluded as to whether the demand was for sharing of commission of insurance business or for any other reason. As such, it has been contended that merely on the basis of such documentary evidence, it could not be concluded that any commission was paid to Gupta in violation of Irdai Act and Rules,” the SC said.

The SAT order had said that in such a case, for Irdai to hold that the appellant has not submitted any documentary proof would be totally false. It had gone on to direct Irdai to entrust the matter to a competent officer other than Joseph for passing a fresh order on the complaint filed by the appellant on merits and in accordance with law.

(With inputs from agencies)