Delhi High Court - Orders
Securities & Exchange Board Of India ... vs Crb Capital Markets Ltd on 5 December, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~2 (SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CO.PET. 379/2009
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (TRUST PET.
NO.3/1997) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Baid and Mr. Praneet
Das, Advs. (Mob: 9818515433)
versus
CRB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani & Ms. Megha
Bharara, Advs. (Mob:9811533510)
Mr. Avneesh Garg & Ms. Iptisha,
Advs. (9818479699)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 05.12.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CO.APPL. 695/2025 in CO.PET. 379/2009
2. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking modification of the judgment dated 1st September, 2025 and order dated 16th September, 2025 passed by this Court.
3. On the last date of hearing i.e., 17th November, 2023, Ms. Sindhwani, ld. Counsel was directed to examine this matter and make submissions.
4. Today, Ms. Sindhwani, ld. Counsel takes an objection to the memo of parties in the present application where she has been arrayed as a Respondent. However, the same appears to be an inadvertent error. Ms. Sindhwani, ld. Counsel being the Local Commissioner cannot be arrayed as a Respondent in such an application.
5. Let the memo parties be modified by the Petitioner within one week.
6. Insofar as the relief sought in the application itself is concerned, Ms. This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 21:03:40 Sindhwani, ld. Counsel has pointed out that there are two separate funds - • one which is regulated and supervised by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs being the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) under Section 125 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 205C of the Companies Act, 2013.
• The second fund is the Investor Protection and Education Fund (IPEF) under Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Securities and Exchange Board of India Regulations of 2009.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that the judgment would require to be modified as these two provisions cannot be read with each other as the funds are separate.
8. Mr. Venugopal, ld. Sr. Counsel further submits that since the present case is under the mutual fund regulations of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter, 'SEBI'), those claimants who may still have not filed any claims, if they come forward and file claims with SEBI, their claims shall be honoured after verification. It is also assured that any surplus fund would be finally transferred to the fund managed by SEBI, that too after apprising this Court.
9. After hearing Ms. Sindhwani. ld. Counsel and Mr. Venugopal, ld. Sr. Counsel this Court is of the view that the Fund ought to be under the control of SEBI. Accordingly the phrase in paragraph 139 and 140(h) of the judgment dated 1st September, 2025 shall read as under:-
"Investor Protection and Education Fund under Section 11 of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with SEBI Regulations, 2009"
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 21:03:40
10. Application stands disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J DECEMBER 05, 2025/neha/ck This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 21:03:40