The Sebi paper aims to remove hardships investors face due to non-standardisation of documents and differing approaches by RTAs and listed companies. The move is intended to enhance ease of investment and offer procedural convenience to investors whose original certificates are lost.
“To provide ease of investment and procedural convenience to the investors, it is proposed to increase the limits for simplified documentation for issuance of duplicate securities from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh,” the market regulator said.
Moreover, to simplify documentation and to reduce cost of obtaining duplicate securities, a common affidavit-cum-indemnity form has been proposed by the market regulator.
“It is also proposed to clarify that the stamp duty shall be applicable as per the state of residence of the investor. The same will be in consistence with the approach followed by Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority,” the consultation paper added.
The consultation paper further proposed that listed companies issue advertisements in the newspapers regarding the loss of securities on behalf of their investors.Current requirementsSebi has prescribed the documentary and procedural requirements for issuing duplicate share certificates through its June 23, 2025 master circular.
Under the current rules, if the securities’ value is Rs 5 lakhs or more the security holder is required to submit a copy of FIR or e-FIR/police complaint or court injunction order along with details of the securities, folio number, distinctive number range and certificate numbers.
They are also required to advertise the loss of securities in a widely circulated newspaper. Moreover, the investors must also submit an affidavit and indemnity bond separately on non-judicial stamp paper.
The Sebi paper noted that the value of securities could be less than the value of stamp duty in many cases, and hence the payment of stamp duty on two different instruments may not be logical.
(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)
