The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) approval of WeWork India's initial public offering (IPO). The bench, led by Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan A. Dubash, found no merit in the petitions and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on one of the petitioners, Vinay Bansal. Bansal is required to deposit the amount with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Another petition filed by Hemant Kulshreshtha was also dismissed, but without any cost.
The court determined that the allegations of inadequate and misleading disclosures were without merit and that SEBI had acted lawfully in approving the IPO. The decision provides relief to the coworking space provider amidst allegations of financial misrepresentation.
Vinay Bansal, the primary petitioner, alleged that WeWork India reported significant losses and a negative net worth while presenting an overly optimistic growth outlook without adequately disclosing associated risks. He also claimed the company failed to disclose critical information regarding ongoing complaints and disputes, including a 2014 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet for corruption and Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to Bansal, an Economic Offences Wing (EOW) chargesheet from November 2024 was omitted from the January 2025 draft red herring prospectus (DRHP) and only added in August 2025 after he raised the issue.
Furthermore, the petition claimed that WeWork India misrepresented its ties with the global WeWork brand, misleading investors to assume financial backing from the U.S.-based parent firm. It was alleged that the company operates under a management license, valid only while the promoters maintain control, and does not own the 'WeWork' trademark. Hemant Kulshreshtha, the other petitioner, argued that the company disclosed only a "lesser offence but not a higher offence", suggesting that investors should not be expected to uncover such omissions.
SEBI argued that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching the court and that the petitions indicated an awareness of the company's disclosed risks, negating claims of being misled. Senior Counsel Shiraz Rustomjee, representing SEBI, contended that courts should not override a regulator's technical expertise unless the decision is arbitrary or unconstitutional. Rustomjee highlighted that SEBI had exercised active oversight, directing WeWork India to list the criminal proceedings as the first risk factor in the red herring prospectus.
WeWork India's ₹3,000 crore IPO opened for subscription on October 3, 2025, and closed on October 7. The shares, priced between ₹615 and ₹648, listed at ₹650 on the NSE and ₹646.50 on the BSE on October 10. The IPO comprised an offer for sale of 4.63 crore shares with no fresh issue, meaning the company received no new funds from the offering as existing shareholders sold their stakes.
The court observed that disclosures were made as required and that investors had shown strong interest in the oversubscribed issue. The detailed written judgment is still awaited.
