/images/ppid_59c68470-image-176459253987778648.webp)
/images/ppid_59c68470-image-176434753085324656.webp)
What is the story about?
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed two petitions seeking to halt WeWork India’s planned initial public offering, removing a last-minute hurdle for the company’s market debut.
A division bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan Parvez Dubash rejected petitions filed by Vinay Bansal and Hemant Kulshrestha and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on Bansal, directing him to deposit the amount with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The court delivered the order orally, with a detailed judgment awaited.
The petitioners had challenged the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s approval for the IPO, alleging that key risks were either inadequately disclosed or unclear. They cited WeWork India’s losses, negative net worth, criminal proceedings involving promoters, and the offer being a full offer-for-sale, calling the combination an “unprecedented” risk for investors.
Senior counsel Shiraz Rustomjee, appearing for SEBI, argued that courts should not interfere with regulatory decisions unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional, adding that SEBI had exercised active oversight and required criminal proceedings to be listed as the first risk factor in the prospectus.
Representing WeWork India, senior counsels Darius Khambatta and Gaurav Joshi said the company had complied with all disclosure requirements under the ICDR Regulations, which mandate clear and concise summaries rather than exhaustive detail. They also questioned the timing of the petitions, saying the draft prospectus had been in the public domain for months and the challenges were raised only at the final stage.
A division bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan Parvez Dubash rejected petitions filed by Vinay Bansal and Hemant Kulshrestha and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on Bansal, directing him to deposit the amount with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The court delivered the order orally, with a detailed judgment awaited.
The petitioners had challenged the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s approval for the IPO, alleging that key risks were either inadequately disclosed or unclear. They cited WeWork India’s losses, negative net worth, criminal proceedings involving promoters, and the offer being a full offer-for-sale, calling the combination an “unprecedented” risk for investors.
Senior counsel Shiraz Rustomjee, appearing for SEBI, argued that courts should not interfere with regulatory decisions unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional, adding that SEBI had exercised active oversight and required criminal proceedings to be listed as the first risk factor in the prospectus.
Representing WeWork India, senior counsels Darius Khambatta and Gaurav Joshi said the company had complied with all disclosure requirements under the ICDR Regulations, which mandate clear and concise summaries rather than exhaustive detail. They also questioned the timing of the petitions, saying the draft prospectus had been in the public domain for months and the challenges were raised only at the final stage.
