[Update] Bombay HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging WeWork India IPO

Update | December 2, 01:35 AM

Two months after reserving its order, the Bombay HC yesterday reportedly dismissed two writ petitions that sought to block WeWork India’s initial public offering (IPO).

As per news agency ANI, a division bench, comprising Justice RI Chagla and Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash, rejected the two pleas and imposed an INR 1 Lakh fine on one of the petitioners, Vinay Bansal.

The HC also directed Bansal to deposit the amount with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority in the next two weeks.

Original | October 9, 01:39 AM

The Bombay High Court (HC) yesterday reserved its order on a plea challenging the upcoming public listing of coworking space provider WeWork India. 

“Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved,” read an order passed by Justice RI Chagla and Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash.

As per Livemint, the petitioner, during the hearing, contended that there was no exception to the rule requiring full and proper disclosure of all serious criminal proceedings pending against the company’s promoters and key managerial personnel in its red herring prospectus (RHP). 

Failure to disclose such material information compromises investor protection and market transparency, the petitioner argued reportedly before the HC.

With this, the arguments in the matter have now been concluded and the HC’s judgement on the matter will be delivered on a later date. There appears no clarity on the slated date of the order, and no interim directions have been issued in the matter. 

This comes as shares of WeWork India are expected to get listed on the exchanges on Friday (October 10). 

The coworking space provider’s INR 3,000 Cr public issue solely comprised an offer-for-sale (OFS) component of up to 4.62 Cr equity shares. Of these, promoter group Embassy Buildcon LLP sold 3.54 Cr shares, while Ariel Way Tenant offloaded 1.08 Cr shares. 

It is this OFS component that was at the centre of contention, but more on this later. 

The company’s public issue opened to weak retail participation on October 3. However, it eventually closed the IPO with a 1.15X subscription, led primarily by qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). 

The Chinks In WeWork India’s Armour

In his petition, Jaipur-based retail investor Vinay Bansal alleged serious lapses in the company’s offer documents and accused the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) of regulatory inaction on the same. 

Bansal also alleged that the company did not disclose associated risks and presented an overly optimistic growth outlook despite reporting heavy losses and a negative net worth. 

For context, the coworking startup reported a profit after tax (PAT) of INR 128.2 Cr in FY25, compared to a loss of INR 135.7 Cr in FY24, on the back of a deferred tax gain of INR 285.7 Cr. In Q1 FY26, WeWork India’s net loss stood at INR 14.1 Cr, down 51% YoY.

Meanwhile, Bansal also claimed that  the company withheld key information in its draft papers on ongoing complaints and disputes that could influence investor decisions. As per a report, these cases include a 2014 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet for corruption, Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings against the company under anti-money laundering norms and an Economic Offences Wing (EoW) chargesheet from November 2024. 

The plea contends that the EoW case was not included in the DRHP filed by the company in January 2025, and included in the RHP only in August 2025 after the petitioner raised it.

The petition also claims that WeWork India misrepresented its ties with the global WeWork brand, leading investors to assume it had the parent firm’s financial backing and stability. Bansal alleged that the IPO-bound company did not own the “WeWork” trademark but rather operated under a management licence that is valid only while the promoters are at the helm.

Subsequently, earlier this week, the Bombay HC sought a response from SEBI in the case.