Rodec Pharma Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: manufactures animal feed supplements at one plant in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, which began operating on 29 December 2022, and markets veterinary pharmaceutical drugs made by third-party manufacturers, for cattle and other livestock (DRHP p.30, DRHP p.35).

Who pays it: veterinary channels: the company sells through veterinary sales representatives, consignee agents and stockists; the top ten customers were 59.29% of revenue in the six months to September 2025 and the largest 15.39% (DRHP p.35, DRHP p.49). Uttar Pradesh was 37.77% of revenue (DRHP p.47).

Why it is raising money: it is not. The offer is entirely a sale by the promoter Mukesh Kumar Gupta, and the company receives no proceeds (DRHP p.31).

How fast it has grown: revenue from ₹716.13 million in FY23 to ₹1,063.93 million in FY25, and ₹627.27 million in the six months to September 2025 (DRHP p.135).

The one thing to understand: a marketing business that has added manufacturing. Veterinary drugs, all made by contract manufacturers, were 61.58% of revenue in the six months; the in-house plant makes the feed supplements, 38.30% (DRHP p.45, DRHP p.46). EBITDA margin rose from 11.34% in FY23 to 24.21% in FY25 (DRHP p.136).

02The business, in plain words

An animal-health company sells medicines and nutritional supplements for livestock to vets and farmers through a field sales force and stockists. Some products it makes; others it has made by licensed manufacturers under its own brand.

A dairy farmer in Uttar Pradesh is advised by a vet to use a feed supplement and a medicine → the farmer buys them from a local stockist → the stockist restocks from Rodec's consignee agent → Rodec made the supplement in Ghaziabad and bought the drug from a contract manufacturer.

The company has agreements of two to five years with its third-party drug manufacturers (DRHP p.45). It has faced a delay in getting consent to operate from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (DRHP p.35).

Earnings equation: Profit ≈ product sales × gross margin − field-force and distribution cost. EBITDA margin was 21.35% in the six months (DRHP p.136).

03Where the money comes from

Source: DRHP p.46, DRHP p.135. H1 FY26 is six months.

Source: DRHP p.47, DRHP p.49.

04The growth record

Source: DRHP p.135, DRHP p.136. H1 FY26 is six months.

Revenue grew at a compound 21.9% a year from FY23 to FY25 and profit after tax at 87.2% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.135, DRHP p.136). Days sales outstanding were 46 in FY23, 49 in FY24 and 76 in FY25, and 83 at September 2025 (DRHP p.66).

05What the growth is made of

Feed supplements, which the company now makes itself: their revenue nearly doubled from ₹232 million in FY23 to ₹447 million in FY25 (DRHP p.46). In FY23 most feed-supplement revenue came from products made by third parties, and by FY25 none did (DRHP p.45). Margins rose as manufacturing moved in-house (DRHP p.30, DRHP p.136).

06Earnings quality

Operating cash flow has fallen behind profit: ₹88.60 million against ₹182.57 million of profit in FY25, and ₹10.90 million against ₹97.31 million in the six months (DRHP p.136). There are no auditor qualifications that have not been given effect in the restated accounts (DRHP p.34). Other income was ₹17.99 million in FY25 against profit before tax of ₹249.08 million, or 7.2% of it (our arithmetic, DRHP p.94). Net working capital days rose from 21 in FY23 to 91 in FY25 (DRHP p.67).

07The balance sheet

Source: DRHP p.136.

Net debt at March 2025 was 0.3 times FY25 EBITDA (our arithmetic, DRHP p.136).

08What the money is for

Source: DRHP p.31.

09Who is selling

Source: DRHP p.31. Mukesh Kumar Gupta holds 11,604,140 shares and would keep 5,954,140; the last column is our arithmetic.

10Promoters

The promoters are Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Chhaya Gupta and Utkarsh Gupta (DRHP p.30).

11Who already owns it

Source: DRHP p.31, DRHP p.32.

Promoters and promoter group hold 92.40% (DRHP p.31).

12What changed just before the IPO

• Manufacturing: in-house production began in December 2022 (DRHP p.30).
• Margins: EBITDA margin more than doubled from FY23 to FY25 (DRHP p.136).
• Debt: net cash at September 2025 (DRHP p.136).
• Cash flow: operating cash flow fell to ₹10.90 million in the six months (DRHP p.136).

The company issued bonus shares at 217 for every 1 held in June 2025 (DRHP p.42). It has not made a pre-IPO placement and is not contemplating one (DRHP p.36). The last allotment of shares for cash was at ₹1,000 a share in March 2011 (DRHP p.109). There has been no change of statutory auditor in the three years before the DRHP (DRHP p.100). The company converted into a public limited company, with a fresh certificate of incorporation dated June 19, 2024 (DRHP p.2).

13Capacity and expansion

One manufacturing facility in Ghaziabad, for feed supplements (DRHP p.35). Veterinary drugs are made by contract manufacturers (DRHP p.45). No expansion is funded by the offer (DRHP p.31).

14Market size and industry structure

The CRISIL report cited in the offer document says India has about 536.8 million livestock, including 303.8 million bovines, is the world's largest milk producer, and has about 67,889 veterinary institutions (DRHP p.30). newboard has not tested the report's statements.

15Competitive position

What the document claims, and what it rests on:

• A certified plant with FAMI-QS and ISO certifications (DRHP p.30).
• A field network of veterinary sales representatives, consignee agents and stockists (DRHP p.35).

Against that: dependence on contract manufacturers for its largest product line, one state for over a third of revenue, a short manufacturing record, and a pending pollution-board consent (DRHP p.35, DRHP p.47).

16Peers the company named

Source: DRHP p.134.

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

17Risks, in plain words

• Contract manufacturers. A few make all its veterinary drugs (DRHP p.35).
• Two product lines. Drugs and feed supplements are almost all revenue (DRHP p.35).
• Short record. Manufacturing only since December 2022 (DRHP p.35).
• Uttar Pradesh. 38% of revenue (DRHP p.47).
• Pollution consent. Delay in obtaining consent to operate (DRHP p.35).
• One plant. All manufacturing in Ghaziabad (DRHP p.35).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Source: DRHP p.34. No proceedings are listed against the company, promoters or directors (DRHP p.34). The company shows no contingent liabilities at September 2025 (DRHP p.35).

19Related-party transactions

Not read in detail for this study. The three promoters were paid ₹7.80 million together in FY23 and ₹11.10 million in FY25 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.37).

20What the offer document does not say

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

• Who the contract manufacturers are and how concentrated supply is, in the pages read.
• Why operating cash flow fell in the six months, in the pages read.
• The status of the pollution-board consent.
• What the 29 criminal proceedings filed by the company concern.
• The price band, lot size or issue dates, which is normal at DRHP stage.

21Five questions for management

1. How many contract manufacturers make the veterinary drugs, and what share does the largest make?
2. Why did operating cash flow fall to ₹11 million in the six months?
3. When will the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board consent be granted?
4. Why is Mukesh Kumar Gupta offering nearly half of that shareholding?
5. What are the 29 criminal proceedings the company has filed?

1Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 1 document the company filed. The 60 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.