International Research Journal of Management and Commerce Vol. 4, Issue 3, March 2017 Impact Factor- 5.564 ISSN: (2348-9766)
© Associated Asia Research Foundation (AARF)
Website: www.aarf.asia Email : editor@aarf.asia , editoraarf@gmail.com
'A STUDY ON RETAIL INVESTORS GRIEVANCES
IN INDIAN CAPITAL MARKET'
Dr. (Mrs.) N. V. Kavitha
HOD Commerce Department,
St. Ann’s College for Women, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500 028. &
Mrs. N. Suma Reddy
Lecturer-Commerce Department,
St. Ann’s College for Women, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500 028.
ABSTRACT
Investor’s grievance Redressal mechanism and safeguarding of retail investors dispense with
one another. Nayak (2010) comprehends the system, have to offer several checks and balances where the entrepreneurial effort is supported by investor’s confidence to easily
capitalize on it, which has failed towards the extent expected and desired. In spite of, diverse
methods and actions taken by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Finance and Stock Exchanges, the retail investors are let
down, dejected and are excluded from the systems. Different Regulations, Bylaws, Acts, are
structured to shield the interest of the retail investors, but the grievances still persist. Various
Frauds like, Harshad Mehta (1991), Ketan Parekh (2001), Satyam (2008), Sahara India
Pariwar investor fund (2010), NSEL (2013), PACL Fonzi scheme (2014) and other
malpractices like insider trading & bucket trading has traumatized the self-reliance of retail
investors. The studies and data illustrate that investors are unhappy and their grievances are
piling.
The present research paper attempts to explore the diverse grievances and Redressal
mechanisms in Indian capital market. A pilot survey is carried out to understand Redressal
mechanisms at SEBI and the various grievances encountered by retail investors. Structured
Questionnaires were executed to 50 investors and data collected is analysed. Despite the
market reforms and regulatory measures initiated by the individuals at the helm of dealings,
involved in the capital market. To Sustain a healthy and strong Stock market, investor’s
confidence to be enhanced by facilitating assurance with respect to Securitisation of funds.
Keywords: Capital Markets, SEBI, Investors Grievances, Redressal mechanism
INTRODUCTION
Indian capital market, the oldest capital market in the world dates back to 18th century by
commencing the trading of securities of East India Company in Mumbai and Kolkata. Capital
market is a supporting system that provides vitality and sustenance to industrial and
commercial enterprises which gained momentum during the liberalization era. Indian
securities market is regulated by various agencies, such as the Department of Economics
Affairs (DEA), the Department of Company Affairs (DCA), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
and SEBI. The Capital Market reforms aimed at improving market efficiency, enhancing
transparency, checking unfair trade practices and bringing the Indian capital market up to the
International Standards.
Indian Capital Market has made commendable progress since the inception of SEBI and has
been transformed into one of the dynamic capital markets of the world. SEBI Launched
online trading, dematerialization of securities, derivatives trading, rolling settlement in the
stock exchanges which resulted in increased transparency in dealings and Rise in market.
Liberalization has opened doors of opportunity in financing the private sectors investments as
Domestic capital market, International capital market and foreign direct investment. Small
investors are the backbone of Indian Capital market who actively participates in channelizing
savings on portfolio investments and recent SEBI reports exhibits 19 million share owning
individuals in India. Domestic savings of investors must be brought to mainstream of Indian
capital market which requires instilling confidence in the minds of investors as there is a
common disinclination on the part of the public to invest either directly or indirectly in
capital market.
Government of India initiated mechanism to redress grievances of the investors through
various Acts like Companies Act, 1956, Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956,
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and SEBI Act, 1992. Indian capital market harmonized with
global market resulting in change of market volatility and investors evidenced with some
market irregularities like economic crisis and corporate scandals made regulators put into
Developments in Capital Market Reforms
The Indian regulatory and supervisory framework of securities market has been strengthened
through the legislative and administrative measures and consistent with the best international
benchmarks like International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO).
Capital market reforms undertaken to encompass legislative regulatory & institutional
reforms, statutory market regulator to empower and strengthen SEBI
India is one of the few countries
To start the screen based trading of government securities
Interest rate futures contracts on the screen based trading platform
Straight through Processing (STP), automate process of order flow and clearing and
settlement on the stock exchanges
To introduce Real Time Gross Settlement system (RTGS) which will allow real delivery
v/s. payment an international norm recognized by BIS and IOSCO
Demutualization and corporatization of stock exchanges mechanism to protect the interest
of investors in securities market
Uniform rolling settlement and same settlement cycles were prescribed creating a true
spot market.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To examine the various types of investors Grievances in Indian Capital market (ICM)
To evaluate the initiatives of SEBI in Redressal Mechanism
METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted for the present research study is undertaken by pilot survey
method where structured questionnaires executed to 50 investors and data thus collected is
analyzed to study the investor’s grievances by using SPSS tool. Data also retrieved from
secondary sources-SEBI annual reports, websites, journals, books, etc.,
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The present research paper is confined to evaluate the types of grievances of investors in
Capital market and also to investigate kind of measures taken by SEBI to safeguard the
LITERATURE REVIEW
An extensive literature survey into various studies revealed-
Chandra (1991), in a study on the proper functioning of the securities markets, examined the
government policy of favoring the small shareholders in terms of allotment of shares. The
study suggested that there was a need to eliminate the bias as that would lead to a better
functioning of the Capital Market and would strengthen investors’ protection.
Pandya (1992), in a study, “SEBI: Its Role, Powers, Functions and Activities”, observed that
as a regulatory and development body, SEBI's efforts in the direction of investor protection
are varied and unlimited. The measures brought in by SEBI broadly cover measures for
allocation efficiency in the primary market with a fair degree of transparency..
Barua and Varma (1993), in a study on the activities of the scams reported that press reports
first appeared in April 1992, indicating that there was a shortfall in Government Securities
held by the State Bank of India (SBI). Investigations revealed that it was just the tip of an
iceberg which came to be called the securities scam. It involved the 21 misappropriation of
funds to the tune of over Rs. 3500 crore (about $ 1.2 billion).
Dhillon (1993), in a doctoral dissertation examined the regulatory policies of the Bombay
Stock Exchange (BSE) over a four year period (July 1986 - June 1990). The findings showed
that regulatory authorities decided changes in their margin policy on the basis of market
activity. It found out that the margins were prompted by changes in settlement returns, price
volatility, trading volume and open positions
Varma (1996), in a study of the weaknesses of the Securities Market, found out that
investors were being treated unfairly. Thus, investors were being misled with impunity.
Using two examples, the study pointed out how easily issuers and merchant bankers got away
with grossly misleading advertisements for public issues. He also stated that, investors must
be protected in all deals, whether they are rights issue, script issue or merger. merchant
bankers. It was argued that, such a ghost must be exorcised, if dealings in the Indian capital
market were to be done at fair and reasonable valuations.
Varma (2002), with a view on Corporate Governance, stated that from the days of Adam
Smith, those who have placed their faith in the free markets had done so in the full
knowledge of the greed that permeated human society. It pointed out that, the breakdown of
27 market discipline may be attributed to State interventions in the free market that fatally
weakened its ability to correct itself.
Dubey (2007), examined the risk management of companies and pointed out that, the
activities were carefully identified and disclosures made. Such activities as the increased use
of derivatives, which possessed a potentially indomitable and preposterous nature, were
fuelling the systemic risk in the Indian Capital Market.
Gaggav (2007), in a study of risk assessment, pointed out that, risk assessment and
management was fast becoming an area of disclosure in the report of Board of directors, and
therefore the Capital Market should not be an exception. It pointed out that, the era of
demutualization in the Capital Market meant that careful disclosure of risk management 28
activities, put in place by management, minimized the losses that resulted both to the
company and the investors.
Parimala (2008), examined a critical study on regulator frame work towards retail investor's
protection in IPOs which reveals the initiative of the SEBI for protecting investors through
Disclosure and Investors Awareness.
Sabarinathan (2010), views "SEBI's Regulation of the Indian Securities Market: A Critical
Review of the Major Developments", focusing on SEBI's performance and economic
consequences of Indian stock market that could potentially affect the functioning of the
securities market adversely.
Venugopal, Sudarsan and Himachalam (2012), examined "Small Investors' Grievances
and Redressal Mechanism in Indian Capital Market", exploring the various problems faced
by the small investors and SEBI’s mechanisms in redressing the retail investors grievances.
The above reviews fall short of quantifying the risks in the Capital Market. The present paper
makes an attempt in understanding the grievances of retail investors and examines the various
redressal mechanism of SEBI. This should be able to guide investors to invest wisely,
avoiding losses.
RETAIL INVESTORS GRIEVANCES IN INDIAN CAPITAL MARKET
Prelude
SEBI has brought in various Laws, Acts, Rules and Regulations to protect the interest of the
retail investors, but the retail investors still feel disappointed, dejected and often excluded
from the system and their grievances still remain. Scams (Harshad Mehta scam, Ketan Parekh
scam, and Satyam scam) Scandals and Malpractices, unauthorized trading in the accounts of
investors, churning to increase brokerage, induced volatility to make arbitrage opportunities
for larger players at cost of the retail players etc., apart from incurring of heavy losses for
them in securities market has shaken the confidence of retail investors. The retail investors
unreasonable and chaotic investment decisions of the unplanned investors have resulted in
unspeakable miseries to them and consequences are lack of returns, opportunity loss form
alternative investments causing mental strain of investors and the types of investor’s
grievances are listed below.
S. No Nature of Grievances
1 Delay in transfer of shares
2 Non-receipt of shares/dividends/rights/bonus shares 3 Delay/Non-receipts in issue of duplicate shares 4 Delay/ Non-receipt of annual reports
5 Delay/ Non-receipt of redemption amount of debentures 6 Delay/ Non-receipt of interest on debentures
7 Delay/ Non-credit of shares in the account by the broker 8 Delay/Non-payment of sale proceeds by the broker etc. 9 Manipulation in the accounts statements
10 Unauthorized trades and unauthorized movements of shares and funds from the clients’ accounts
11 Dabba Trading/ churning etc. in clients' accounts 12 Delay/Non-updating of clients' information in records SEBI website: www.http://investor.sebi.gov.in.investorcomplaint.form
The present research study revolves around to examine the diverse types of retail investor
grievances in securities market where the data is retrieved from primary source through a
structured questionnaire from different class of investors so has to have an understanding on
the types of grievances and its Redressal.
Survey Analysis
In order to understand the investor’s grievances a structured questionnaire was executed to a
convenient sample of seventy five respondents of different income groups. Out of which only
fifty six respondents have responded by filling the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted
five parts namely Personal details, personal finance, primary markets, secondary markets and
[image:6.595.84.516.117.331.2]investors grievances. Few of the collected data is presented in the following tables-
Table 1: No of Investors under different Income groups
Source: Primary data
Monthly Income (Rs) Yes No Total
10000-20000 6(10.7%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 3(5.4%) 2(3.6%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 8(14.3%) 0(.0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000 13(23.2%) 2(3.6%) 15(26.8%)
Above100000 22(39.3%) 0(.0%) 22(39.3%)
Total 52(92.9%) 4(7.1%) 56(100.0%)
Table 1 elicits that more than three fourth i.e. 39.3% of the respondents in the income group
of above rupees one lakh are investors and 23.2%,14.3% and 10.7% of the respondents in the
income group of seventy thousand to one lakh, forty thousand to seventy thousand and ten
thousand to twenty thousand respectively are into investment practice.
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no relationship
[image:7.595.49.551.180.423.2]between the level of monthly income and they being the investors.
Table 2: Income vs. Various forms of investments
Monthly Income
(Rs)
NSC Post
Offices Life Insuran ce Savin gs Bond Mutua l Funds Equit y Share s Deriv-atives Total 10000-20000
0(.0%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4 %)
0(.0%) 3(5.4 %)
0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000
0(.0%) 0(.0%) 5(8.9%) 0(.0% )
0(.0%) 0(.0% )
0(.0%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000
0(.0%) 2(3.6% )
3(5.4%) 0(.0% )
3(5.4% )
0(0%) 0(.0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000 2(3.6 %) 2(3.6% ) 8(14.3% ) 0(.0% ) 3(5.4% ) 0(.0% )
0(.0%) 15(26.8 %) Above 100000 5(8.9 %) 3(5.4% ) 6(10.7% ) 0(.0% ) 2(3.6% ) 0(.0% ) 6(10.7 %) 22(39.3 %)
Total 7(12.5 %) 7(12.5 %) 22(39.3 %) 3(5.4 %) 8(14.3 %) 3(5.4 %) 6(10.7 %) 56(100.0 %)
Chi-Square test : .000
Source: Primary data
Table 2 clearly indicates the preferences of the respondents and their investment pattern in
different securities. Almost 40% of the respondents prefer to invest in life insurance policies,
14.3% of the total respondents invested in mutual funds, 12.5% each in post offices and
National saving certificates and 10.7% of the respondents in derivatives.
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no association
[image:7.595.57.555.608.743.2]between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their investment preferences.
Table 3: Income vs. Increase in Exemption limit for Investors
Monthly Income
(Rs)
Strongly Agree
Agree Can’t
Say
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total
10000-20000 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 2(3.6%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 2(3.6%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%) 0(.0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000
Above100000 16(28.6%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 22(39.3%)
Total 26(46.4%) 11(19.6%) 4(7.1%) 12(21.4%) 3(5.4%) 56(100.0%)
Chi-Square test :000
Source: Primary data
Table 3 explains the perceptions of the respondents with regards to increase in the tax
exemption limit of the existing 1.5laks.It is evident the more than half of the respondents i.e.
66% of the respondents (46.4% & 19.6%) expressed that they would like to have an increase
in the existing limit. And 21.4% of the respondents also expressed their disagreement with
the same, it is interesting to note that they are all from the monthly income group of below
rupees seventy thousand.
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no association
between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their perceptions with respect to
[image:8.595.63.532.344.518.2]increase in tax exemption limit on investments.
Table 4: Income vs. Awareness of SEBI
Source: Primary data
In the above table 4 it is clear that more than fifty % of the respondents’ i.e57.1% are aware
of the existence of Securities and exchange board of India, as one of the SEBIs function is to
safe guard and be responsive to the needs/interest of the investors. But at the same time
almost half of the respondents (42.9%) of the investors are not aware of the existence of
SEBI.I think it is high time that the authorities should go out to spread the awareness of its
existence and its functions so as to ensure that even small/retail investors can avail the
benefits. The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no
relationship between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their perceptions
with respect to awareness of the existence of SEBI.
Monthly Income (Rs) Yes No Total
10000-20000 0(.0%) 6(10.7%) 6 (10.7%)
20000-40000 5(8.9%) 0(.0%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 5(8.9%) 3(5.4%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000 3(5.4%) 12(21.4%) 15(26.8%)
Above100000 19(33.9%) 3(5.4%) 22(39.3%)
Total 32(57.1%) 24(42.9%) 56(100.0%)
Table 5: Income vs. Satisfaction of Investors
Monthly Income (Rs)
Highly Satisfied
Satisfied Can’t Say Dissati sfied Highly Dissatis fied Total
10000-20000 0(0%) 4(7.1%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 2(3.6%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 0(.0%) 1(1.8%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 4(7.1%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 0(.0%) 5(8.9%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000
5(8.9%) 6(10.7%) 2(3.6%) 0(.0%) 2(3.6%) 15(26.8% )
Above100000 3(5.4%) 14(25.0 %)
0(0%) 2(3.6% )
3(5.4%) 22(39.3% )
Total 8(14.3% 30(53.6
%)
2(3.6%) 2(3.6% )
14(25.0 %)
56(100.0 %)
Source: Primary data
Table 5 explains the level of satisfaction of the investors with the reforms of SEBI in primary
market for safeguarding the interest of retail investors. Around 70% (53.6% are satisfied and
14.3% are highly satisfied) of the total respondents expressed their satisfaction on the
functioning of SEBI and its reforms to safeguard the investors. And 28.6% (25% & 3.6%) of
the respondents are not satisfied with SEBI’s reforms.
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is an association
between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their level of satisfaction with
[image:9.595.41.571.519.723.2]the reforms of SEBI.
Table 6: Income vs. Problems of Investors
Monthly Income (Rs)
Delay in receipt of refunds/allotment Application form too cumbersome Shares are not credited in demat account wrong credit of shares Any
other Total
10000-20000 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 0(.0%) 5(8.9%) 0(.0%) 0().0% 0(.0%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 2(3.6%) 3(5.4%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000
3(5.4%) 7(12.5%) 2(3.6%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 15(26.8%)
Above100000 10(17.9%) 9(16.1%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 22(39.3%)
Total 15(26.8%) 24(42.9%) 11(19.6%) 3(5.4%) 3(5.4%) 56(100.0%)
Table 6 indicate that more than 40% i.e. 42.8% of the total respondents expressed that filling
the application form is too cumbersome ,26.8% stated that there is delay in receipt of refunds
and allotment and around 19.6% felt that the amount is not credited on time into demat
account
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no relationship
between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their perceptions with respect to
[image:10.595.68.544.211.499.2]their problems while investing.
Table 7: Income vs. Grey areas Identified by Investors
Monthly Income (Rs)
Delay/No n-credit of Shares in Demat A/C
Non Receipt of Statement of Account
Non Receipt
of Contract
Notes
Excess Levy of Broker
age
Brokers Not Giving
Right Advice
Total
10000-20000 3(5.4%) )
0(.0% 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 1(1.8%) 1(1.8%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 3(5.4%) 0(.0
%)
2(3.6%) 3(5.4%) 0(0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000
3(5.4%) 4(7.1%) 8(14.3%) 0(0%) 0(.0%) 15(26.8% )
Above100000 2(3.6%) 16(28.6%) 4(7.1%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 22(39.3% )
Total 12(21.4%
)
21(37.5%) 14(25.0 %)
6(10.7% )
3(5.4%) 56(100.0 %)
Source: Primary Data
Table 7 explains the grey areas identified by the investors in secondary market. We have
37.5% of the total respondents expressed non receipt of statement of account, around 25%
stated that they are not receiving contract notes on time and 21.4% of the respondents felt that
there is a delay or noncredit of shares in their account.
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no relationship
between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their perceptions with respect to
Table 8: Income vs. Investors complaints on SEBI
Monthly Income (Rs)
Over regulatio
n of SM
Frequent changes
in policies
delay in resolving
inadequa te efforts
no protectio
n
Any Other
Total
10000-20000 0(.0%) 0(0%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%) 0(.0%) 6(10.7%)
20000-40000 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 0(.0%) 4(7.1%) 0(.0%) 1(1.8%) 5(8.9%)
40000-70000 2(3.6%) 0(0%) 0(.0%) 5(8.9%) 1(1.8%) 0(.0%) 8(14.3%)
70000-100000
3(5.4%) 4(7.1%) 5(8.9%) 0(.0%) 3(5.4%) 0(.0%) 15(26.8%)
Above100000 5(8.9%) 2(3.6%) 7(12.5%) 4(7.1%) 3(5.4%) 1(1.8%) 22(39.3%)
Total 10(17.9%
)
6(10.7%) 12(21.4%
)
13(23.2% )
13(23.2% )
2(3.6%) 56(100.0%
)
Chi-Square test : .000
Table 8 indicates the investors’ complaints on the functioning of SEBI. We find that 23.2%
of the respondents are complaining about inadequate efforts and no protection to investors
from SEBI. 21.4% of the respondents stated that there is delay in resolving their grievances
and 17.9% of the respondents felt that there is over regulations of stock markets
The chi-square test value at 5% level of significance indicates that there is no relationship
between the level of monthly income of the respondents and their perceptions with respect to
the complaints against SEBI.
Initiatives of SEBI in Redressal Mechanism
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been setup to protect the interest of
investors in securities and also to promote the development and regulate the securities
market. An investor enjoys investing, if (i) he knows how to invest; (ii) he has full knowledge
of the market; (iii) the market is safe and there are no miscreants; and (iv) there are
arrangements to redress the grievances. Retail investors grievances Redressal mechanism is
not yet satisfactory and much remains to be done by Government, market regulator SEBI and
other market intermediaries. The grievances can be initiated by Retail investors against any of
the following agencies / intermediaries, namely:
Securities & Exchange Board of India
Stock Exchanges
Depositories and Depository Participants
Merchant Brokers
Registrars and Transfer Agents
Listed Companies
Various Grievances Redressal Mechanism at SEBI
Investor Service Cell & investor Service Committee / Investor Grievance Cell &
Committee
Arbitration & Conciliation Mechanism
Investor Protection Fund
Listing Agreement Mechanism
SCORES (SEBI Complaints Redress System)
INITIATIVES
Building the capacity of investors through education and awareness to enable an investor
to take informed investment decisions.
Investment details in Indian Capital securities market relevant for investing to be made
available in public domain. SEBI adopted disclosure based regulatory regime and
monitors various initial and continuous disclosures.
To ensure the Capital market has systems and practices to make transactions safe where
SEBI has taken various measures, such as, dematerialization of securities, screen based
trading system, T+2 rolling settlement, etc.
A comprehensive mechanism devised by SEBI to facilitate Redressal of investor
grievances against intermediaries and listed companies. by sending reminders,
enforcement actions (adjudication, prosecution proceedings, directions, etc.) as per law
A comprehensive arbitration mechanism has been inducted in stock exchanges and
depositories for resolution of disputes of the investors with brokers and depository
participants.
Instituted investor protection funds at Exchanges to compensate investors where a broker
is declared a defaulter.
The Office of Investor Assistance and Education (OIAE) acts as the single window
CONCLUSION
Investor grievance Redressal mechanism, one of the imperative actions SEBI has initiated in
Indian Capital Market securities to attain effective Investor Protection is still in vain
regardless the best efforts of SEBI, many grievances are unresolved. In India, Redressal
mechanism is complex due to multiple agencies involved, the Redressal of retail investor
complaints with specific tasks are overlapping causing confusion for retail investors and
intermediaries. Though SEBI has upgraded the investor grievance Redressal mechanism by
implementing SCORES which is centralized grievances tracking system for the entire SEBI
which will reduce grievance process time as the entire process is in electronic mode but still
pending grievance in capital market persists due to No centralized database, Delay in
Redressal, Loss/ misplacement of records and Storage. From the empirical study in the
present research it is observed that 25% of the respondents are not receiving contract notes on
time and 21.4% of the respondents viewed there is a delay or noncredit of shares in their
account and also 21.4% of the respondents expressed that there is delay in resolving their
grievances and 17.9% of the respondents opined there is over regulations of stock markets
Hence, the need of the hour is to implement effective investor grievance mechanism to
achieve 100% grievance Redressal rate, aiming for consistent Redressal system through
investor awareness and education making Indian securities capital market deeper & broader
enhancing the money flow to securities market-Only then Indian capital market will be on par
with other developed markets of the world.
REFERENCES
1. Annual reports of SEBI – www.sebi.gov.in
2. Grievances and Redressal of investors in Indian Capital Market with regard to
Coimbatore city – Mrs. R. Vennila, Ms. Nevedita. V
3. Handbook of statistics on the Indian Securities Market – 2010-2015
4. http://www.bseindia.com
5. http://iepf.gov.in/FAQs-investorGrievances.asp
6. Investigating the nature of investor’s grievances and assessing the role of the grievance
redressal agencies-Keyur Mahesh Nayak
7. ISIRS-Role of SEBI in the Regulation and Investigation of Indian Securities Market. an
8. Nifty 50 stock of the Nation, Indian Securities Market – A Review National Stock
Exchange of India Limited, Volume-X, 2007
9. Shodhaganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/13
10.Small investor Grievances and Redressal Mechanism in Indian Capital Market. Dr.
P.Venugopal; Dr. K. Sudarshan; Dr. O.Himachalam
11.Stock Market Investor Grievance Redressal System – An Empirical Study – Dr. T.S.
Devaraja Kusuma Hiremat Y.G.
12.Survey of Indian Investors conducted by SOI and NCAER
13.www.http://sebi.gov.in circular No. CIR/OIAE/2/2011, June 3, 2011
14.www.sebi.gov.in/annualreport