Bombay High Court reserved judgment on WeWork India DRHP disclosure challenge
Petitioner alleges DRHP omitted material investigations; Sebi asked to respond
WeWork’s ₹3,000-crore IPO subscribed 1.15×; listing planned October 10
Court’s ruling could delay listing or trigger further regulatory scrutiny
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a petition that challenges the adequacy of disclosures in the draft red herring prospectus (DRHP) filed by WeWork India Management ahead of its ₹3,000-crore IPO.
The bench, Justice RI Chagla and Justice Farhan A Dubash recorded that arguments have concluded and said the judgment would be delivered at a later date.
The Petition
The petition, filed by Jaipur-based retail investor Vinay Bansal, alleges that the DRHP contained “material non-disclosures and misleading statements”, including the alleged omission of a criminal chargesheet and other serious proceedings involving the company’s promoters. The petitioner has argued that such omissions undermine investor protection and market transparency and sought directions for Sebi to respond to his earlier complaints.
Bansal’s plea contends that certain investigations, including an Economic Offences Wing (EoW) chargesheet and earlier Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) matters flagged in media and governance reports were not properly disclosed in the DRHP filed in January 2025 and were added to the RHP only later in August after the petitioner raised the issue.
He also argued the merchant bankers engaged in selective disclosure and that Sebi did not act on his complaint in a timely manner.
Market Response to WeWork IPO
The legal challenge comes as WeWork India’s IPO, structured entirely as an offer-for-sale (OFS) of existing shares, closed this week with mixed demand.
Market data cited by media showed the issue was subscribed about 1.15 times overall, with weak retail uptake and heavier institutional participation. Observers say the court’s reserved order could complicate the company’s planned listing on October 10 if the judges issue interim directions.
Governance advisers and proxy firms have also flagged concerns publicly. InGovern Research Services published a note raising doubts about the IPO’s valuation, promoter litigation and the OFS-only structure.
Court Directions
The Bombay High Court asked Sebi for a response during earlier hearings, and the regulator’s position will now form part of the record when the court issues its decision.
Legal and market participants say the key questions for the bench will be whether the DRHP omitted material information that should have been disclosed and whether Sebi’s supervisory processes were adequate in addressing the petitioner’s complaint.
With the order reserved, market participants will watch for the court’s judgement and any interim relief that could delay or affect the planned listing. A ruling that finds material non-disclosure could trigger additional regulatory scrutiny or require remedial disclosures; a dismissal would likely clear the path for the IPO to proceed as scheduled.
