Investor alleges WeWork India hid regulatory complaints in its DRHP.
Petition seeks court order to publish annexures and refer Sebi probe.
Alleged omissions relate to promoters' criminal chargesheet and enforcement proceedings.
Bombay High Court reserved judgment; interim application could delay WeWork IPO
A Delhi-based retail investor has filed an interim application in the Bombay High Court alleging that WeWork India concealed material regulatory complaints and supporting annexures in its IPO prospectus. The investor is asking the court to order the company and its book-running lead managers to publish full complaint records and to refer the matter to market regulator Sebi for investigation.
Rishab Agarwal, who describes himself as an investor focused on market-compliance issues, lodged the application on October 15 within Writ Petition (L) No. 32194 of 2025.
Agarwal says the red herrings and documents published alongside WeWork India’s prospectus omitted annexures to complaints lodged by Sterling and Wilson Renewable Energy Ltd, and that Sterling and Wilson confirmed to him on October 15 that supporting material was indeed missing from the public filings.
The Petition
The application accuses WeWork India Management Limited and its book-running lead managers, JM Financial, ICICI Securities, Kotak Mahindra Capital, Jefferies India and 360 One WAM, of violating Sebi’s disclosure norms under the Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements (ICDR) Regulations, 2018.
Agarwal seeks an order directing the company and managers to publish an addendum to the prospectus (dated 7 October 2025) containing the complete complaints and annexures, and asks the court to direct Sebi to probe the alleged suppression and take appropriate action.
The petition says the omitted documents are material because they relate to criminal proceedings reportedly involving WeWork India promoters Jitendra and Karan Virwani. Agarwal’s filing references a chargesheet filed by Mumbai’s Economic Offences Wing alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach by a public servant or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Agarwal has also asked Sebi why, in his view, it has not disqualified Jitendra Virwani under the regulator’s “fit and proper” norms given the existence of enforcement actions by other agencies.
Company Response
WeWork India has denied the allegations, saying its IPO disclosures complied with applicable regulations.
The company and the named lead managers have yet to be made parties to the investor’s interim application in open court as of the filing; the matter is now pending adjudication before a division bench of the Bombay High Court. No hearing date has been announced publicly.
If the court finds merit in Agarwal’s claims or directs Sebi to investigate, the case could complicate WeWork India’s IPO timetable and raise fresh scrutiny of prospectus drafting and due diligence practices by merchant bankers.
Legal experts note that courts sometimes order addenda to prospectuses or other remedial disclosures where omission of material information is shown, and that Sebi has the power to investigate disclosure lapses and impose penalties or seek other remedies.
