Investors must approach SEBI by representation, which shall be decided through a reasoned order.

The petitioners alleged that Enormous Industries Limited, Barkha Financiers Limited, and their directors/promoters had collected money from investors through redeemable preference shares and various schemes, and sought refund with 12% annual interest, investigation, attachment of properties, and other consequential reliefs.

By order dated 6 August 2026, the claims against respondent nos. 4 to 15 were dismissed for non-compliance with an earlier order dated 22 September 2025; the writ petition thereafter proceeded only against respondent nos. 1 to 3, including the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India.

During hearing, the parties submitted that the controversy was covered by the Division Bench judgment in Dilip Kumar Ravidas & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 13358 of 2019, decided on 2 December 2022.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to direct writ relief against the concerned authorities for refund of money allegedly collected by the private respondent companies and their directors/promoters, together with interest and consequential measures such as investigation and property attachment?

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in accordance with the directions issued in Dilip Kumar Ravidas concerning submission and consideration of a representation before the Securities and Exchange Board of India?

The Court applied the principle that where an identical controversy has already been adjudicated by a Division Bench, a subsequent petition raising the same issue may be disposed of in terms of that binding or persuasive precedent.

Under Dilip Kumar Ravidas, the petitioners were required to approach the Securities and Exchange Board of India by filing a representation; SEBI was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within four months, after complying with the principles of natural justice and permitting the parties to place relevant materials on record.

The precedent further preserved the petitioners’ liberty to pursue alternative remedies and to approach the Court again, if necessary, without any expression of opinion on the merits.

The Court did not independently adjudicate the allegations of illegal collection of funds, entitlement to refund, or liability of the private companies and their directors.

Having noted that the parties agreed that the issue was covered by Dilip Kumar Ravidas, the Court adopted the procedural solution prescribed in that judgment.

Accordingly, rather than issuing direct refund, attachment, or investigative directions against the authorities, it required the petitioners to pursue their grievance before SEBI through a formal representation.

The Court also left all merits and other legal remedies open.

The petitioners were required to approach SEBI by filing a representation within four weeks; SEBI was directed to consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within four months, by a reasoned and speaking order, after providing hearing and an opportunity to submit relevant documents.

The order was to be communicated to the petitioners. Liberty was reserved to pursue alternative remedies and to approach the Court subsequently if required; no opinion was expressed on the merits.

Any interlocutory application was also disposed of.