https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782837 An IPO was held consistent with the SEBI disclosure regime because eligibility could be satisfied through book-building with the prescribed QIB allocation, even without the primary financial thresholds, and the Companies Act permitted the offer for sale. The Court rejected the argument that a separate fit and proper test was required and treated the earlier SEBI rejection order as superseded by the ICDR framework. It also found the offer documents materially disclosed the criminal proceedings, complaints, brand-related risks, and inspection material, holding that the law requires adequate disclosure, not exhaustive narration. The petitions were further viewed as vulnerable to delay, lack of bona fides, and suppression of material facts. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782837 An IPO was held consistent with the SEBI disclosure regime because eligibility could be satisfied through book-building with the prescribed QIB allocation, even without the primary financial thresholds, and the Companies Act permitted the offer for sale. The Court rejected the argument that a separate fit and proper test was required and treated the earlier SEBI rejection order as superseded by the ICDR framework. It also found the offer documents materially disclosed the criminal proceedings, complaints, brand-related risks, and inspection material, holding that the law requires adequate disclosure, not exhaustive narration. The petitions were further viewed as vulnerable to delay, lack of bona fides, and suppression of material facts. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782837