Disputes against brokers must be referred to the Exchange’s Investor Grievance Redressal Panel under applicable bye-laws.

The Appellants (five members of the Jhunjhunwala family) filed separate appeals under Section 15T of the SEBI Act, 1992, challenging the impugned order dated March 6, 2026, passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

The impugned order, issued under the SCORES mechanism, had disposed of the Appellants' complaints regarding a cumulative claim of approximately Rs. 7 Crore against their broker.

The Appellants sought to set aside SEBI's disposal and restore their original complaints.

During the proceedings, it was suggested that the appropriate forum for such disputes was the Stock Exchange.

1. Whether the Appellants should seek redressal through the Stock Exchange's internal dispute resolution mechanism rather than the SCORES mechanism.

2. Whether the appeals should be disposed of with liberty to approach the Multi Commodities Exchange of India Limited (MCX).

The Court considered the regulatory framework governing investor grievances, specifically the SCORES mechanism under SEBI and the Exchange bye-laws.

The core legal principle applied is that disputes between a client and a broker involving monetary claims should be referred to the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) as per the bye-laws of the respective Stock Exchange (Respondent No. 2), which is duty-bound to adjudicate such disputes.

The Tribunal noted the Respondent-SEBI's submission that the Appellants' primary grievance—a monetary dispute with a broker totaling Rs. 7 Crore—is best addressed by the Multi Commodities Exchange of India Limited (MCX).

The Tribunal observed that under the Exchange's bye-laws, there is a mandatory obligation to refer such disputes to the IGRP.

Upon being presented with this alternative, the Appellants, through their advocate, expressed their desire to withdraw the present appeals and exercise the option to approach the Stock Exchange directly.

The Tribunal found this to be the appropriate procedural recourse given the nature of the claim.

The Court held that the Exchange shall consider the complaints and take action in accordance with its bye-laws.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.