Manmohan, J.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7463/2000 titled as "Indian Bank Mutual Fund and Ors. v. SEBI", whereby the learned Single Judge held that though the offer document floated by the Respondent Fund was capable of two constructions, namely, either offering indicative returns or minimum assured returns, but as no investor was misled, the circumstances did not warrant issuance of any direction to the Respondent to treat the expression "minimum indicative return" as a minimum assured return and not an "indicative return".

.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

.(a) Respondent No. 2, Indian Bank which is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, created Respondent No. 1, by way of a Trust and Respondent No. 1 as the Principal trustee by virtue of a Trust Deed dated 17th November, 1989.

.(b) In 1990, the Respondent No. 1 issued an offer document under the "INDJYOTHI" scheme whereby it offered Plan-A and Plan-B to the investors. Under both these plans, the investors were offered minimum assured ret