In recent regulatory developments, there has been a significant change regarding the practices of stockbrokers and their interaction with clients’ funds. A new rule has been implemented by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) by its Circular No. SEBI/HO/MIRSD/MIRSD-PoD-1/P/CIR/2023/061 dated 25.04.2023 prohibiting stockbrokers from obtaining a Bank Guarantee (“BG”) based on clients’ funds from 01.05.2023. Also, the existing BGs established with clients must be closed by 30.09.2023.
Prior to the new regulation, stockbrokers could secure a BG using the funds entrusted to them by clients. This served as a form of security or collateral for their operations, creating a potential risk for investors in case of broker default or misappropriation of funds. The prohibition on stockbrokers obtaining BG based on clients’ funds has a few advantages to investors like:
Investors’ funds are safeguarded because the funds are no longer at risk of being used as collateral. This regulation helps to ensure that clients’ funds are protected against any potential misappropriation.
By strengthening the regulatory framework, market integrity and confidence of investors are enhanced. This can attract more investors and contribute to the overall growth and stability of the financial market/economy.
The prohibition facilitates transparency in the relationship between stockbrokers and their clients.
Monitoring and Reporting:
Stock exchanges are directed to submit data to SEBI on a fortnightly basis starting from 01.06.2023 in the prescribed format.
Stockbrokers will require to provide a certificate by their statutory auditor confirming the implementation of this circular. Such certificate shall be submitted to stock exchanges by 16.10.2023.
Regulatory Measures:
Segregation of Client Assets: To protect investors, regulatory authorities require stockbrokers to maintain a clear separation between their clients’ funds and their own capital. This segregation ensures that clients’ funds remain safeguarded and can only be utilised for authorised trading and investment activities on behalf of the clients.
Enhanced Compliance and Reporting: Stockbrokers are now subject to more stringent compliance and reporting requirements. They must provide regular reports and statements to their clients, detailing the status and utilisation of their funds. These measures promote transparency and enable investors to monitor the handling of their investments more effectively.
Exclusion:
The provision of this framework will not be applicable to proprietary funds of stockbrokers in any segment and their proprietary funds deposited with Clearing Members in the capacity of a client.
Conclusion:
The prohibition on stockbrokers obtaining bank guarantees based on clients’ funds serves as a vital safeguard to protect investor interests and maintain market integrity. By understanding the fiduciary duties of stockbrokers, the nature of bank guarantees, and the regulatory measures in place, investors can make informed decisions and hold stockbrokers accountable for any breaches. Ultimately, a robust legal framework, combined with investor education, will contribute to a fair and transparent stock market environment, inspiring confidence and fostering sustainable economic growth.
*Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views are personal and do not constitute legal opinion. *
More Insights
22 Jun 2026
8
Min Read
Claim Admission Is Not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.
06 Apr 2026
5
Min Read
Minority Exit under S. 66: The Supreme Court on Fairness, Valuation, and the Limits of Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd. clarifies the contours of fairness under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. It reinforces a market-based approach to valuation, affirms the permissibility of DLOM, and underscores judicial deference in the absence of oppression, marking a significant shift in minority exit jurisprudence.
12 Nov 2025
14
Min Read
A Bird’s Eye View of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Framework for Personal Guarantors under the IBC with Recent Judicial Developments
A concise overview of the personal insolvency and bankruptcy framework for personal guarantors under the IBC, with key NCLAT and NCLT rulings shaping the law. This piece explains initiation, moratoriums, repayment plans, creditor rights, bankruptcy triggers, and the 2025 Amendment Bill, offering a clear snapshot of the evolving jurisprudence and its practical implications for stakeholders.