Crystal Crop Protection Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does — sells herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and natural crop solutions such as bio-stimulants and plant-growth regulators, and seeds for field crops, vegetables and flowers, for Indian farmers; it was established in 1994 (DRHP p.27). It had 13,285 active distributors at September 2025 (DRHP p.179).

Who pays it — farmers through distributors and dealers; most revenue is from India (DRHP p.32). Crop-protection and natural products were ₹15,156 million and seeds ₹4,205 million of sales in the six months to September 2025 (DRHP p.178).

Why it is raising money — ₹4,228.61 million to repay the company's borrowings, ₹426.98 million for its subsidiary Saffire Crop Science to repay debt, and the rest for unidentified acquisitions, strategic initiatives and general purposes, capped together at 35% of the gross proceeds (DRHP p.28).

How fast it has grown — revenue of ₹25,133 million in FY23, ₹22,299 million in FY24 and ₹26,905 million in FY25, and ₹19,780 million in the six months to September 2025 (DRHP p.31).

The one thing to understand — a profitable, growing agrochemicals business carrying a serious legal overhang. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade has demanded ₹1,094.17 million plus interest over terminal excise duty refunds the company received in 2012–2016; the CBI has filed a chargesheet implicating the company, its directors and former DGFT officials; and the Enforcement Directorate has provisionally attached ₹302.06 million of the company's fixed deposits under the money-laundering law (DRHP p.78).

02The business, in plain words

An agrochemicals company buys technical-grade active ingredients, formulates and packs them into branded products, and sells them through distributors to farmers before each sowing season; it does the same with seeds grown for it.

A cotton farmer faces a pest outbreak before the kharif season → the local dealer offers a Crystal-branded insecticide → the dealer restocks from a Crystal distributor → Crystal formulated the product and is paid by the distributor on credit.

Gross margin was 37.28% in the six months (DRHP p.178).

Earnings equation: Profit ≈ product volume × (price − active-ingredient and formulation cost) − distribution and staff cost − interest. EBITDA margin was 16.85% in the six months (DRHP p.178).

03Where the money comes from

Source: DRHP p.178, DRHP p.179. H1 FY26 is six months.

Revenue in FY23 and FY24 included ₹1,457.35 million and ₹374.28 million from the non-operational business of 13 limited liability partnerships classified as step-down subsidiaries; that fell to ₹5.14 million in FY25 and nil in the six months (DRHP p.179).

04The growth record

Source: DRHP p.31, DRHP p.178, DRHP p.579. H1 FY26 is six months.

05What the growth is made of

Margin and seeds. Gross margin rose from 27.55% in FY23 to 34.29% in FY25 and 37.28% in the six months, and seed sales rose 56% from FY23 to FY25 (DRHP p.178, our arithmetic). Excluding the LLP revenue, revenue rose from ₹23,676 million in FY23 to ₹26,900 million in FY25 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.178, DRHP p.179). Six-month revenue was 74% of FY25's full year; the document lists weather and seasonality among its top risks (our arithmetic, DRHP p.32).

06Earnings quality

The statutory auditor qualified the FY23 and FY24 accounts over the terminal excise duty matter; for FY25 and the six months the matter moved to an emphasis-of-matter paragraph, and the restated accounts make no adjustment for it (DRHP p.31, DRHP p.78). Operating cash flow was positive in FY24 and FY25 and negative in the six months, when net working capital days were 128 (DRHP p.179, DRHP p.579). The company spent ₹6,734.35 million on investing activities in FY25 (DRHP p.579).

07The balance sheet

Source: DRHP p.31, DRHP p.179.

Contingent liabilities at September 2025 include ₹692.00 million of entry tax, ₹289.41 million of excise duty and ₹123.84 million of GST claims (DRHP p.33).

08What the money is for

Source: DRHP p.28.

09Who is selling

Source: DRHP p.29. Together they offer up to 7,405,387 shares; the split was not read for this study (DRHP p.27). The IFC holdings come from debentures converting before the red herring prospectus (DRHP p.28).

10Promoters

The promoters are Nand Kishore Aggarwal, Ankur Aggarwal, Komal Aggarwal and Ankur Aggarwal KNK Family Trust (DRHP p.27). The company, the promoters and one director face criminal and regulatory proceedings over alleged violations of the 2009–2014 Foreign Trade Policy (DRHP p.33).

11Who already owns it

Source: DRHP p.29. The last row is our arithmetic. Two other KNK family trusts hold 2.19% each (DRHP p.29). The company has eight equity shareholders (DRHP p.29).

12What changed just before the IPO

• Borrowings — up from ₹5,773 million in March 2024 to ₹12,052 million (DRHP p.31).
• Margins — EBITDA margin up to 16.85% in the six months (DRHP p.178).
• Audit — the TED qualification became an emphasis of matter from FY25 (DRHP p.31).
• Distributors — nearly doubled since FY23 (DRHP p.179).

13Capacity and expansion

The proceeds mainly reduce debt; part may fund acquisitions not yet identified (DRHP p.28). Plant capacities were not read for this study.

14Market size and industry structure

The F&S report cited in the offer document values India's crop-protection industry at USD 5.52 billion in FY2025 and projects about USD 8.5 billion by FY2030, and the Indian seed market at USD 3.9 billion (DRHP p.27). Those projections are F&S's, and newboard has not tested them.

15Competitive position

What the document claims, and what it rests on:

• A broad portfolio across chemicals, biologicals and seeds (DRHP p.27).
• Collaborations with multinational companies for products (DRHP p.27).
• A large distributor base of 13,285 (DRHP p.179).

Against that: dependence on India and the monsoon, regulatory approvals, a few raw-material suppliers, no long-term customer contracts, and the DGFT and CBI proceedings (DRHP p.32, DRHP p.33).

16Peers the company named

The document gives the listed peers' P/E range as 17.75 to 45.88, average 31.62, using prices on 5 December 2025 (DRHP p.176). The peer names were not read for this study.

No P/E is possible for the company until a price band is set.

17Risks, in plain words

• DGFT, CBI and ED. A ₹1,094 million demand, a criminal chargesheet and attached deposits (DRHP p.78).
• Weather. Demand depends on climate and seasons (DRHP p.32).
• India. Most revenue is domestic (DRHP p.32).
• Distributors. No long-term agreements (DRHP p.33).
• Suppliers. A few key raw-material suppliers (DRHP p.33).
• Debt. Borrowings doubled in 18 months (DRHP p.31).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Source: DRHP p.32. The TED matter is pending in the CBI court in Ahmedabad and the appellate tribunal under the money-laundering law; the company holds a Gujarat High Court stay on the DGFT demand and, on legal advice, expects no material impact (DRHP p.78).

19Related-party transactions

Not read in detail for this study.

20What the offer document does not say

In the sections read for this study, the document does not give:

• What the 13 LLPs' "non-operational business" was, or why it produced ₹1,457 million of revenue in FY23, in the pages read.
• What the ₹6,734 million of FY25 investing spend bought, in the pages read.
• Which acquisitions the proceeds might fund.
• What happens to the business if the CBI case goes against the directors.
• The price band, lot size or issue dates, which is normal at DRHP stage.

21Five questions for management

1. What is the status of the CBI chargesheet and the ED attachment, and which directors are named?
2. What was the LLPs' business, and why did it end?
3. What did the company acquire in FY25, and how is it performing?
4. Why did borrowings double while margins improved?
5. What kinds of acquisitions are planned with the proceeds?

1Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 1 document the company filed. The 35 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.