https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465062 HC considered a challenge to a company's DRHP on the ground of non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings against the company and its CEO. SEBI clarified its regulatory role was confined to ensuring adequate disclosure of material risk factors and, after referring the complaints to the Lead Manager, additional risk disclosures were incorporated in the final RHP. The criminal complaint was only at Section 156 CrPC stage, with no FIR or civil/company law proceedings impacting management or control. Holding SEBI's view on adequacy of disclosure neither arbitrary nor capricious, HC found no prima facie case and declined ad interim stay of the IPO. 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 HC considered a challenge to a company's DRHP on the ground of non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings against the company and its CEO. SEBI clarified its regulatory role was confined to ensuring adequate disclosure of material risk factors and, after referring the complaints to the Lead Manager, additional risk disclosures were incorporated in the final RHP. The criminal complaint was only at Section 156 CrPC stage, with no FIR or civil/company law proceedings impacting management or control. Holding SEBI's view on adequacy of disclosure neither arbitrary nor capricious, HC found no prima facie case and declined ad interim stay of the IPO. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465062