5 months ago
1
The IPO, which opened connected October 1 and closed connected October 7, had already raised ₹1,348 crore from marquee investors including ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, HDFC Mutual Fund, Goldman Sachs and Allianz Global Investors. | Photo Credit: BIJOY GHOSH
The Bombay High Court connected Monday dismissed 2 writ petitions challenging the disclosures successful WeWork India Management Pvt. Ltd.’s initial public offering (IPO), holding that the allegations of inadequate and misleading disclosures were “without merit” and that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had acted lawfully. The tribunal besides imposed a outgo of ₹1 lakh connected 1 petitioner for “deliberate suppression” of worldly facts.
Delivering judgment, a Division Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash observed, “We are satisfied that SEBI has exercised owed attraction and caution and complied with the ineligible requirements, including those prescribed nether the ICDR Regulations, successful transportation with the WeWork India IPO.”
The Bench added, “Courts should beryllium dilatory from substituting its ain contented successful spot of the actions of SEBI.”
The petitions, filed by Hemant Kulshrestha and Vinay Bansal, sought directions to SEBI to halt oregon amend the IPO, alleging that the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) and Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) failed to disclose serious transgression proceedings against WeWork India’s promoters and risks to its marque license. Both claimed SEBI had failed to enactment connected their complaints.
Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for Mr. Kulshrestha, told the court, “There is gross and deliberate suppression of information, though the chargesheet filed by CBI mentions Sections 409 and 477A of IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, these person been conveniently omitted from the disclosures.”
He added, “The disclosures besides neglect to uncover that too the CBI chargesheet, different chargesheet has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate nether the PMLA.”
Supporting him, Senior Advocate Amit Desai argued, “The disclosures successful the DRHP and RHP are materially incomplete and misleading, they ought to person acceptable retired the information that sedate offences nether Section 409 and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) work with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act person been drawn.”
For Mr. Bansal, elder advocator Navroz Seervai submitted, “WeWork India could ne'er person been permitted by SEBI to travel retired with an IPO, SEBI ought to person rejected the DRHP and RHP nether its General Order No.01 of 2012.”
He argued that the institution had “incurred nett losses successful FY 2022, 2023 and 2024 and had a antagonistic nett worthy of ₹437.50 crore arsenic connected March 31, 2024.”
Senior Advocate Shiraz Rustomjee, for SEBI, countered, “The superior work for ensuring accuracy and correctness of disclosures lies connected the Lead Managers… SEBI has discharged its obligations by ensuring compliance with ICDR Regulations.”
He pointed to SEBI’s July 8, 2025, letter, saying, “By this elaborate missive moving into 17 pages, SEBI applied its caput and suggested modifications which were incorporated successful the RHP.”
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, for WeWork India, argued, “The IPO is successful conformity with ICDR Regulations. Promoters are not exiting but reducing shareholding to conscionable listing norms.”
He added, “All complaints and responses person been disclosed successful Section IX of the RHP and made disposable for nationalist inspection.”
Rejecting the petitioners’ claims, the Bench observed, “Upon a elaborate perusal of each these disclosures, we find that the aforesaid intelligibly uncover the chargesheets filed against the Promoter/s of WeWork India, some by CBI arsenic good arsenic the ED.”
It held that the IPO complied with Regulation 6(2) of ICDR Regulations, which permits book-built issues with 75% allocation to Qualified Institutional Buyers adjacent if profitability norms are not met.
“There is nary infirmity connected the portion of SEBI successful permitting WeWork India to marque this IPO,” the bid said.
On suppression by Mr. Bansal, the tribunal noted, “It was incumbent upon Vinay Bansal to person disclosed these 2 responses and impleaded the 5 BRLMs, a enactment who approaches the tribunal with unclean hands oregon by withholding worldly documents is disentitled to immoderate relief.”
“Petition filed by Hemant Kulshrestha is hereby dismissed with nary bid arsenic to costs. Petition filed by Vinay Bansal is hereby dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh payable by him to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority wrong a play of 2 weeks,” the bid read.
The IPO, which opened connected October 1 and closed connected October 7, had already raised ₹1,348 crore from marquee investors including ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, HDFC Mutual Fund, Goldman Sachs and Allianz Global Investors.
