Disclosure in IPO offer documents is sufficient when it fairly states material litigation risk and supports informed investor decision-making.

Disclosure for a public offer is adequate when the red herring prospectus fairly sets out material litigation risk and enables an informed investment decision; it need not give an exhaustive account of every allegation. The prospectus here disclosed pending litigation, summarised the criminal complaint and its possible impact on ownership and participation rights, and the proceedings had not even reached the FIR stage. SEBI's view that the disclosure was sufficient was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious, so no prima facie case for interference under Article 226 was made out. Ad interim relief was declined and the IPO was allowed to proceed without stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether ad interim stay of the proposed IPO should be granted on the ground that the offer document did not adequately disclose the pending criminal complaint and related allegations.

Analysis: The disclosure framework under the SEBI ICDR Regulations requires material disclosures sufficient to enable an informed investment decision, not an exhaustive narration of every pending dispute. The RHP disclosed the existence of pending litigation, summarised the allegations, and specifically referred to the complainant's allegations and their possible impact on ownership and participation rights. The proceedings relied upon had not progressed even to the stage of an FIR, and SEBI, as the expert regulator, had taken the view that the disclosure was adequate for the IPO. On these facts, no prima facie case was made out that the approval of the RHP was arbitrary, capricious, or called for interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: Ad interim relief was declined and no stay of the IPO was granted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adequacy of disclosure did not justify immediate interference with the public issue, and the matter was left to proceed without interim restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of a public offer, disclosure of pending litigation is sufficient if it fairly summarises the material risk and enables an informed investor to assess the exposure; exhaustive pleading of the dispute is not required absent a prima facie showing of arbitrariness.

---