https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465062 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. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 09:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465062 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. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465062