Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 JUNE 2021

Insurance Companies (Foreign Investment) Amendment Rules 2021

Tuli & Co
Tuli & Co
Contributor
Tuli & Co

Tuli & Co

About us: Tuli & Co was established in 2000 to service the Indian and international insurance and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Tuli & Co

Following the announcement of the increase in the foreign investment ceiling in Indian insurance companies from 49% to 74% in the central budget speech for the financial year 2021-22 (Budget Speech), ...

IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Shubhangi Pathak
Shubhangi Pathak
Priya Misra
Priya Misra
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

Following the announcement of the increase in the foreign investment ceiling in Indian insurance companies from 49% to 74% in the central budget speech for the financial year 2021-22 (Budget Speech), the Insurance (Amendment) Act of 2021 (2021 Amendment) was notified with effect from 1 April 20211.

Pursuant to this, the Ministry of Finance recently issued the Indian Insurance Companies (Foreign Investment) Amendment Rules 2021 (Amendment Rules) on 19 May 2021 which amend specific provisions of the Indian Insurance Companies (Foreign Investment) Rules 2015 (2015 Rules) to expressly provide the norms which will have to be followed by insurance companies having foreign investment.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Acquisition By An FOCC Of An Indian Company: Pricing Conditions For Resident And Non-resident Shareholders

A FOCC refers to an Indian entity that has received foreign investment and is ultimately owned or controlled by persons resident outside India. Although incorporated in India under the Companies Act, such entities are treated differently from domestically owned and controlled Indian companies for the purposes of foreign investment regulation and downstream investment structuring. Consequently, an FOCC, despite being an Indian incorporated entity, is subject to regulatory conditions applicable to foreign investment while undertaking investments into other Indian entities.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
LegaLogic
LegaLogic
Article

CCPA’s Guidelines On Dark Patterns: An Overview

The visual interface of ecommerce platforms increasingly influences how consumers select, purchase, subscribe to and cancel goods and services. Before the issuance of a framework specifically addressing dark patterns, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“Consumer Protection Act”) and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 (“E-Commerce Rules”) already prohibited unfair trade practices in e-commerce.
IndiaConsumer Protection
Tuli & Co
Tuli & Co
Article

Termination, Recovery & Damages – Lessons From FW Aviation v Vietjet

The dispute in FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company1 has been decided through three substantial judgments of the English Commercial Court (“English Court”). Together, they address whether the aircraft leases were validly terminated, sums payable as a result of termination, and the extent to which damages could be claimed for losses arising from the condition, detention and delay in eventual export of the aircraft.
IndiaTransport
Tuli & Co
Tuli & Co
Article

No Name? No Escape From Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Answers In Sanofi v CBI

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings against a company cannot be quashed merely because no natural person acting for it has been identified or arraigned. Allegations must prima facie reveal that a natural person acted on behalf of the company and that the surrounding circumstances do not render the existence of the requisite mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable.
IndiaCriminal Law
Tuli & Co
Tuli & Co