Maharashtra Oil Extractions Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does — crushes soybean into crude oil and meal, refines the oil into edible oil, and turns the meal into food-grade flakes, soya flour and textured soya protein, with lecithin and speciality chemicals as by-products (AP p.3).

Who pays it — institutional buyers, processors and international customers in bulk, plus retail and modern trade for packed edible oil; sales run across twenty states and exports to more than nineteen countries (AP p.3).

Why it is raising money — ₹1,250.00 million for working capital and ₹1,272.71 million to modernise and expand the Nandurbar, Dhule and Gangakhed plants (AP p.6).

How fast it has grown — revenue from ₹17,449.01 million in FY24 to ₹22,115.37 million in FY26, and profit after tax from ₹173.52 million to ₹862.22 million (AP p.8).

The one thing to understand — 100% of the shares before this offer are held by the promoters and their family; there is no outside shareholder at all, and the entire equity base was created by a 120-for-1 bonus issue in September 2025 (AP p.7, AP p.9).

02The business, in plain words

A soybean is about 18% oil and about 80% meal. A solvent extraction plant separates the two. The oil is then refined into the cooking oil sold in bottles; the meal, which is protein, is either fed to animals or processed further into food a person eats.

A food or feed manufacturer needs soya oil or soya protein → it orders in bulk, or a retailer stocks the packed oil → the company crushes seed at Dhule, Nandurbar or Gangakhed, refines the oil and processes the meal → it is paid per tonne, or per pack.

This company does all of it. Crude and refined edible oil, plant-based protein for feed, food-grade soya meal — non-GMO defatted toasted and untoasted flakes and grits — and the value-added end: soya flour and textured soya protein, which is the mince-substitute sold as soya chunks. By-products include lecithin and speciality and industrial chemicals (AP p.3).

Sales split two ways. The business-to-business side is exports and bulk sales of soya products, oil intermediates and by-products to institutional buyers and processors; the consumer-facing side is refined edible oil and protein foods sold in bulk and in consumer packs through retail and modern trade (AP p.3). The company states it is the largest exporter of soya toasted flakes by volume, on the CARE report commissioned for the document (AP p.3).

Four manufacturing facilities: Dhule, Nandurbar and Gangakhed in Maharashtra run by the company, and a fourth at Dhule run by its subsidiary Basant Nutrifoods Private Limited (AP p.3). It employed 291 permanent people in FY26 (AP p.10).

Earnings equation: Revenue = tonnes crushed × realisation per tonne, and the margin is the crush spread — what oil and meal fetch, less what the seed cost. Raw material was 77.11% of total expenses in FY26 (AP p.11), so a small move in the spread is a large move in profit.

03Where the money comes from

The document gives the mix through its risk factors rather than a mix table in the summary. Refined vegetable oil was 34.48% of product sales in FY24, 40.19% in FY25 and 44.33% in FY26. Animal feed ingredients went the other way: 43.71%, 35.14% and 28.68% (AP p.11). The shift is from selling meal as feed towards selling refined oil.

Source: AP p.3, on ₹4,324.77 million, ₹4,692.71 million and ₹4,952.43 million. Read from the filing: for a company of this size that is moderate concentration — the top five are about a fifth of revenue and the share has fallen. The document does not give the largest customer alone, the top ten, or any customer name.

Geographically, domestic sales were ₹19,497.68 million of FY26 revenue, 88.39%, and exports ₹2,562.20 million, 11.61%; the export share has drifted down from 12.81% in FY24 (DRHP p.186). Within India the concentration is in one state: Maharashtra was 65.04% of domestic revenue in FY26, against 59.00% in FY24 (AP p.11).

04The growth record

Source: AP p.8, DRHP p.186.

Revenue compounded at 12.6% a year over the two years, EBITDA at 69.7% and profit after tax at 122.9%. The EBITDA margin is 334 basis points higher than two years ago and the profit margin 291 basis points higher, but both are lower than in FY25 — the margin peaked in the middle year. Earnings per share, after the bonus, were ₹0.78, ₹3.92 and ₹3.88 (AP p.8).

Read from the filing: almost all of the profit improvement happened in FY25, not FY26. Revenue rose 17.4% in FY26 while profit fell slightly, so the FY26 year added volume at a thinner spread. Interest cover tells the same story from the other side — 1.61× in FY24, then 10.50× and 12.71× (DRHP p.186).

The cash flows across the three years are worth reading together: FY25 shows ₹3,146.70 million coming in from investing activities and ₹3,563.65 million going out through financing, while borrowings fell from ₹4,781.59 million to ₹1,571.32 million (AP p.8). Something substantial was realised and used to repay debt in that year; the abridged summary does not say what.

05What the growth is made of

Revenue rose ₹4,666.36 million between FY24 and FY26. The document supports a partial split.

Capacity utilisation carries most of it. The solvent extraction plant, at a constant 420,000 MTPA of installed capacity, ran at 59.88% in FY24 and 72.57% in FY26 — a 21.2% rise in tonnes crushed with no new capacity. Refining, constant at 61,050 MTPA, went from 64.51% to 74.01%. Packaging, constant at 63,000 MTPA, went from 79.44% to 92.79% (AP p.10).

Two new lines account for the rest. Soya flour capacity of 21,000 MTPA appeared in FY25 and ran at 17.93%, then 61.73% in FY26. Textured soya protein went from 2,400 MTPA at 4.83% utilisation in FY25 to 14,400 MTPA at 15.15% in FY26 (AP p.10).

Mix moved at the same time: refined vegetable oil from 34.48% to 44.33% of product sales, animal feed ingredients from 43.71% to 28.68% (AP p.11).

Read from the filing: this is volume growth on existing assets plus a move up the value chain, and the capacity table is unusually complete — installed capacity and utilisation for five lines across three years. What the document does not give is realisation per tonne, so the price component cannot be separated, and it does not give tonnes by product, so the value-added shift cannot be sized in volume.

06Earnings quality

Two lines need explaining and the document explains both.

The first is the FY26 operating outflow of ₹883.23 million against ₹862.22 million of profit, after two years of positive operating cash flow. Revenue rose 17.4% that year, so working capital absorbed the growth; the abridged summary does not break the movement out.

The second is the provision change. Until FY26 the company carried a 1.50% loss allowance on trade receivables that were not yet due, and in FY26 it discontinued that allowance because recent collection experience showed negligible default; the rates on overdue buckets were unchanged (DRHP p.470). Read from the filing: releasing a provision raises reported profit in the year it is released, and the document does not quantify how much of FY26 profit that accounts for.

The subsidiary's qualification is described in full: Basant Nutrifoods made a private placement in FY25 without keeping application money in a separate account, filed Form MGT-14 only after the offer letter had gone out, and received application money before shareholder approval. The company reported it voluntarily, and on 9 July 2026 the Registrar of Companies at Mumbai imposed a penalty of ₹0.20 million on the company and ₹0.10 million on each of three directors, ₹0.50 million in total, payable within ninety days (DRHP p.471).

07The balance sheet

Net worth was ₹4,610.27 million at the end of FY26 against ₹2,957.31 million two years earlier. Total borrowings were ₹2,853.88 million, having fallen to ₹1,571.32 million at the end of FY25 from ₹4,781.59 million at the end of FY24 and then risen again (AP p.8).

All of the borrowing carried a floating rate at the last two year ends: the document states there were no fixed-rate borrowings as at 31 March 2026 or 31 March 2025, against ₹1,823.01 million of fixed-rate borrowing at 31 March 2024. On its own sensitivity analysis, a 50 basis point rise in rates would have reduced profit before tax by ₹14.27 million in FY26 (DRHP p.470).

Net asset value per share was ₹20.68 at the end of FY26, ₹16.81 and ₹13.27 in the two prior years, all after giving effect to the bonus (AP p.8). Adjusted net debt to total equity was 0.55× (DRHP p.186).

Contingent liabilities are disclosed as a risk factor but not quantified in the abridged summary (AP p.11); the figure sits in the restated financial information, which was not read for this study.

The fresh issue is stated in rupees — up to ₹3,700.00 million — so one line of the post-issue balance sheet can be drawn: no part of it repays debt. All four capital-expenditure objects and the working-capital object add to assets, so borrowings would be unchanged by the issue except to the extent the working-capital object displaces future borrowing (AP p.6).

08What the money is for

The offer is a fresh issue of up to ₹3,700.00 million and an offer for sale of up to 2,14,28,571 equity shares of ₹10 face value (AP p.1).

Source: AP p.6. The four plant objects total ₹1,272.71 million; with working capital, ₹2,522.71 million of the ₹3,700.00 million fresh issue is allocated, and the balance goes to general corporate purposes and issue expenses, capped at 25% of gross proceeds for the former.

Into the business ₹3,700.00 million, the fresh issue. To selling shareholders up to 2,14,28,571 shares, which at DRHP stage is a share count and not an amount.

The company may undertake a pre-IPO placement of up to ₹250.00 million before the red herring prospectus is filed; if it does, the fresh issue reduces by that amount, and the placement may not exceed 20% of the fresh issue (AP p.6).

Read from the filing: three of the four plant objects are modernisation and upgradation of facilities the company already runs, not new plants. The one genuinely new asset is the Dhule packaging unit at ₹592.06 million, which is also the largest single object after working capital.

09Who is selling

Source: AP p.1, certified on 13 September 2026.

All four sellers are promoter-group members, not promoters themselves and not outside investors. The cost of ₹0.08 a share against a ₹10 face value is the arithmetic consequence of the 120-for-1 bonus described in section 09: the original cost divided across 121 times as many shares.

Between them they are offering 2,14,28,571 shares of the 22,29,03,417 outstanding, 9.61% of the pre-offer capital.

10Promoters

There are eight promoters, all from two families that have run this business together: Basantlal Shankarlal Agrawal, Manoj Basantlal Agrawal, Vandana Manoj Agrawal, Shailendra Basantlal Agrawal, Alkesh Basantlal Agrawal, Omprakash Shankarlal Agrawal, Ashok Shankarlal Agrawal and Kasim Abdul Samad Balesaria (AP p.1).

Manoj Basantlal Agrawal is managing director, a commerce graduate of the University of Poona associated with the company since November 1995, with over thirty years in oil refining and solvent extraction. Alkesh Basantlal Agrawal, whole-time director, is a petrochemical engineering graduate of Savitribai Phule Pune University with twenty-nine years of shop-floor experience. Kasim Abdul Samad Balesaria, whole-time director, has been with the company since April 2006 and has over twenty years in soybean processing. Basantlal Shankarlal Agrawal is the first director and has more than twenty-six years of experience (AP p.4, AP p.5).

Several promoters hold interests outside the company: Manoj and Alkesh Agrawal are partners in Pragati Organics and AB Agribiz and Organics LLP and directors of Basant Nutrifoods Private Limited and Samruddhi Proteins Private Limited; Vandana, Shailendra, Omprakash and Alkesh Agrawal are partners in Sita Industries (AP p.4, AP p.5). Basant Nutrifoods is the subsidiary that operates the fourth plant.

The board is completed by three independent directors, Vilas Vishnu Shinde, Nitin Rambilas Kabra and Deepika Shrenik Chhajed. Sanjay Bhagirath Agrawal is chief financial officer and Jyoti Shah company secretary (AP p.12).

Promoter economics. Every promoter acquired shares in the twelve months before the DRHP at a weighted average cost of nil, because those shares came under the bonus issue — Manoj Basantlal Agrawal 1,46,87,400 shares, Omprakash Shankarlal Agrawal 1,33,41,400, Alkesh Basantlal Agrawal 1,22,53,920, Shailendra Basantlal Agrawal 1,19,38,440, Basantlal Shankarlal Agrawal 1,15,99,800, Ashok Shankarlal Agrawal 86,42,760, Kasim Abdul Samad Balesaria 37,68,000 and Vandana Manoj Agrawal 9,72,000, all at nil (AP p.12). Across all shares transacted, the weighted average cost of acquisition was nil over one year, nil over eighteen months and ₹4.09 over three years (AP p.12).

The bonus itself: on resolutions of 10 September 2025 and shareholder approval of 13 September 2025, the company allotted 22,10,61,240 bonus shares of ₹10 each, 120 for every one held on the record date of 12 September 2025 (AP p.9). That is what took equity share capital from ₹18.42 million to ₹2,229.03 million.

Litigation. Three criminal and two tax proceedings are outstanding against the promoters, aggregating ₹31.41 million. Nothing is outstanding by them, and there has been no SEBI or exchange disciplinary action in the last five fiscals (AP p.13).

11Who already owns it

Source: AP p.6, AP p.7.

The document states the position twice, and it is the most unusual fact in the filing: the additional top ten shareholders row and the other public shareholders row both read nil. Every share is held by the promoters or their family, across forty-four named holders. The largest single promoter-group holding is Beena Sunil Agrawal at 7.50%, followed by Agrawal Basantlal Shankarlal (HUF) at 6.90%; among the promoters, Omprakash Shankarlal Agrawal holds 6.03% and Ashok Shankarlal Agrawal 3.91% (AP p.6, AP p.7).

There is no private equity, no venture capital, no institutional holder and no employee holding disclosed. There is therefore no pre-IPO investor to price against, and the ₹4.09 three-year weighted average cost of acquisition is a family transaction history rather than an outside valuation.

This is a judgement, not a disclosure: the post-offer figures are blank throughout because the offer price is not set, and with the fresh issue stated in rupees rather than shares, the share count cannot be computed at all until a band exists.

12What changed just before the IPO

• A 120-for-1 bonus issue in September 2025 created 22,10,61,240 new shares and took equity share capital from ₹18.42 million to ₹2,229.03 million (AP p.9).
• The expected-credit-loss provision was reduced. In FY26 the company discontinued the 1.50% allowance it had carried on receivables not yet due (DRHP p.470).
• Operating cash flow turned negative in FY26, at ₹(883.23) million, after ₹808.65 million and ₹802.63 million in the two prior years (AP p.8).
• Borrowings were repaid then re-drawn. Down from ₹4,781.59 million to ₹1,571.32 million in FY25, funded by ₹3,146.70 million from investing activities, then back up to ₹2,853.88 million in FY26 (AP p.8).
• All fixed-rate borrowing disappeared. ₹1,823.01 million at 31 March 2024, nil at both later year ends (DRHP p.470).
• Two value-added lines started. Soya flour capacity of 21,000 MTPA and textured soya protein of 2,400 MTPA appeared in FY25; TSP capacity was then raised six-fold to 14,400 MTPA in FY26 (AP p.10).
• The product mix shifted towards refined oil, from 34.48% of product sales in FY24 to 44.33% in FY26, with animal feed falling from 43.71% to 28.68% (AP p.11).
• A subsidiary's private placement was regularised. A CARO qualification for FY25, voluntarily reported, drew a ₹0.50 million penalty by adjudication order of 9 July 2026 (DRHP p.471).
• Companies Act defaults were taken up for compounding with the Registrar of Companies and the NCLT Mumbai bench (AP p.11).
• Three independent directors were appointed to constitute the board for listing (AP p.12).

13Capacity and expansion

Source: AP p.10. Installed capacity for the first three lines was unchanged across all three years; soya flour capacity appeared in FY25 and textured soya protein rose from 2,400 MTPA in FY25 to 14,400 MTPA in FY26.

Storage sits alongside: 35,000 MT of silos, 1,060 MT of day bins, 5,650 MT of tanks and 41,650 MT of warehouses at the end of FY26 (AP p.10).

Three readings follow. Packaging is close to full at 92.79% and is exactly what the largest new object funds — the ₹592.06 million Dhule packaging unit. Crushing at 72.57% has room, which is why the other three objects are modernisation rather than new capacity. And textured soya protein, the most value-added line, ran at 15.15% of a capacity that was multiplied by six in the same year — the document does not say when that line is expected to fill.

The DRHP does not state what tonnage any of the four funded objects will add, or when each is expected to be commissioned.

14Market size and industry structure

As claimed. The industry chapter relies on a CARE report commissioned for this offer document. It states the Indian edible oil market was worth ₹4,432 billion in FY26 and is projected to reach ₹5,400 billion by FY29, a compound rate of 8.1% over FY24 to FY29, on rising per-capita consumption, population, urbanisation, changing diets and demand from food processing and hotels and restaurants. India is described as the fourth-largest player globally after the USA, China and Brazil, with roughly 15–20% of global oilseed area, 6–7% of vegetable oil production and 9–10% of consumption (AP p.4).

The part that is addressable. The Indian edible oil market includes palm, mustard, groundnut and sunflower, most of which this company does not process. Its market is soybean crushing and soya protein, sold to processors and to consumers within its distribution, plus the export market for toasted flakes. The abridged summary does not size the soya sub-segment separately.

What the company is today. Revenue of ₹22,115.37 million in FY26 against an edible oil market the report puts at ₹4,432 billion is about 0.5% — but that is a ratio across two different things, since the company is not in most of that market. The document does give one positional claim: largest exporter of soya toasted flakes by volume, on the same commissioned report (AP p.3).

Every industry figure above comes from the CARE report commissioned by the issuer and is labelled as such.

15Competitive position

The three listed peers the company names are set out in section 15, and their figures place this business: larger than two of them in revenue, and the lowest-margin of the four.

What the document gives as the basis for winning work is presence across the whole soybean chain rather than one step of it, plants sited in the growing belt, a portfolio spanning price points from bulk meal to consumer packs, long relationships across industries, and a stated focus on reducing receivables (AP p.4).

Read from the filing: in a crush business the durable advantages are location relative to the crop, scale of the extraction plant and access to the export market, and the document evidences all three — 420,000 MTPA of extraction capacity in Maharashtra, and exports to more than nineteen countries. What it does not give is the company's share of Indian soybean crushing, the number of crushers it competes with, or the crush spread it earns against theirs.

One structural fact stands out from the peer table. This company's EBITDA margin was 5.97% in FY26 against 25.71% for Manorama Industries and 8.07% for Gujarat Ambuja Exports (DRHP p.186). Margin in this industry is set by where in the chain a company sits, and the number says this one sits early in it.

16Peers the company named

Peers named in the offer document: Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Manorama Industries Limited and Shri Venkatesh Refineries Limited (DRHP p.186).

Source: DRHP p.186, for the financial year ended 31 March 2026; rupee figures rounded here to the nearest million, net debt to equity as the document adjusts it.

The set is coherent on business and wide on economics. Gujarat Ambuja Exports is two and a half times this company's revenue at a similar margin. Shri Venkatesh Refineries is close in revenue and margin but carries four times the leverage. Manorama Industries is the outlier on every line — a quarter of its revenue in EBITDA — which is a different position in the chain rather than a different level of execution.

Where this issue sits against their multiples cannot be said until a price band exists, which is section 16's subject and does not arise at DRHP stage.

17Risks, in plain words

Input cost. Materials, packaging and consumables were 77.11% of total expenses in FY26 and over 80% in each of the two prior years (AP p.11). The company neither grows the soybean nor controls its price, which moves with Indian and international crop conditions. A crush business earns the spread, and three-quarters of the cost base is one side of it.

Geography. Maharashtra was 65.04% of domestic revenue in FY26, up from 59.00% in FY24, and all four plants are in that state (AP p.11, AP p.3). Production and demand share the same weather.

Product. Refined vegetable oil was 44.33% and animal feed ingredients 28.68% of product sales in FY26 — two categories, 73% of the business (AP p.11).

Capacity. The company itself lists under-utilisation of expanded capacity as a risk (AP p.11). Textured soya protein at 15.15% of a capacity raised six-fold in one year is the live example (AP p.10).

Financial. Operating cash flow was ₹(883.23) million in FY26 (AP p.8), and all borrowing is floating rate, so a 50 basis point move costs ₹14.27 million of profit before tax (DRHP p.470).

Compliance. Delays in payment of statutory dues; corporate records including filed forms that are not traceable and discrepancies in records; and failures to comply with provisions of the Companies Act for which adjudication or compounding applications have been filed with the Registrar of Companies and the NCLT Mumbai bench (AP p.11). Separately, a CARO qualification on the subsidiary drew a ₹0.50 million penalty in July 2026 (DRHP p.471).

Utilities. Water, power and fuel were 2.10% of total expenses in FY26, and their shortage is disclosed as a risk to manufacturing (AP p.11).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Source: AP p.13, as at the date of the DRHP, under the SEBI regulations and the company's materiality policy, to the extent ascertainable and quantifiable.

The largest amount by far is ₹267.50 million in matters brought by non-promoter directors, across one criminal and two material civil proceedings — larger than every other row combined. The abridged summary does not describe them; the outstanding-litigation chapter carries the detail and was not read for this study.

The company has not identified any group companies under Schedule VI of the SEBI regulations, so there is no group-company litigation row (AP p.13).

19Related-party transactions

Not read for this study. The abridged prospectus carries no related-party summary, and the related-party note in the restated financial information was not reached.

The document does flag the ground for it: several promoters are partners or directors in Pragati Organics, AB Agribiz and Organics LLP, Sita Industries, Basant Nutrifoods Private Limited and Samruddhi Proteins Private Limited (AP p.4, AP p.5), and Basant Nutrifoods is the subsidiary that runs the fourth plant. This is a gap in this version of the study rather than a finding, and it will be filled at the red herring prospectus stage.

20What the offer document does not say

• No customer is named, and only the top five are given — not the largest alone, not the top ten (AP p.3).
• No realisation per tonne for any product line, so revenue cannot be split into volume and price.
• No crush spread, the single number that determines this business's margin.
• No tonnage or commissioning date for any of the four funded plant objects (AP p.6).
• No quantification of the provision release from discontinuing the 1.50% allowance on not-due receivables in FY26 (DRHP p.470).
• No explanation of the ₹3,146.70 million investing inflow in FY25 in the abridged summary (AP p.8).
• No contingent liability figure in the abridged summary, though it is raised as a risk (AP p.11).
• No description of the ₹267.50 million of proceedings brought by non-promoter directors (AP p.13).
• No price band, lot size or offer dates, which is normal at DRHP stage.

21Five questions for management

1. Discontinuing the 1.50% expected-credit-loss allowance on not-due receivables was a change of estimate in FY26. How much did it add to profit before tax that year?
2. Operating cash flow was positive ₹802.63 million in FY25 and negative ₹883.23 million in FY26 on 17.4% revenue growth. Which working-capital line moved, and is the new level the run rate?
3. What produced the ₹3,146.70 million of cash from investing activities in FY25, which was used to take borrowings from ₹4,781.59 million to ₹1,571.32 million?
4. Textured soya protein capacity went from 2,400 MTPA to 14,400 MTPA in FY26 and ran at 15.15%. What utilisation does that line need to cover its own depreciation, and by when?
5. After the offer, the promoters and their family will still hold the great majority of the company and there has never been an outside shareholder. What governance changes have been made ahead of listing, beyond appointing the three independent directors?

2Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 2 documents the company filed. The 75 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.