Gorantla Geosynthetics Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: designs and installs plastic lining systems for landfills, caps closed dumps, digs up and sorts old dumped waste ("biomining"), and supplies geomembranes, geotextiles and similar products it buys from manufacturers (DRHP p.198, DRHP p.32).

Who pays it: municipal corporations, urban local bodies and public sector undertakings brought 51.11% of FY26 revenue, the rest came from private customers and contractors (DRHP p.228). The largest customer brought 30.93% of FY26 revenue and the top five 92.54% (DRHP p.27). No customer in the concentration table is named.

Why it is raising money: ₹21.2 crore for biomining and waste processing machines (trommel screens, shredders, an excavator, a tipper) and ₹20.0 crore for working capital, plus a general corporate purposes amount left blank (DRHP p.120). There is no offer for sale (DRHP p.1).

How fast it has grown: revenue from ₹57.3 crore in FY24 to ₹74.3 crore in FY26, about 13.8% a year, and profit after tax from ₹7.5 crore to ₹11.6 crore, about 24.9% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78).

The one thing to understand: the profit is not yet turning into cash. Money owed by customers rose from ₹36.5 crore to ₹65.9 crore over the two years and receivable days went from 149 to 255, so operating cash flow was −₹11.1 crore in FY24 and −₹1.9 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.77, DRHP p.30, DRHP p.79).

02The business, in plain words

What Gorantla Geosynthetics does

A city or a public sector plant needs a landfill lined, a dump capped or old waste cleared → the company wins a tender or a sub-contract → it buys geosynthetic sheets from manufacturers, brings excavators, trommel screens and sub-contractors to the site, lays and welds liners or digs, screens and separates waste → it bills against measured work or tonnes processed, with part of each bill held back until the defect period ends (DRHP p.210, DRHP p.226, DRHP p.227).

The company was incorporated in Chennai on June 20, 2006 as Gorantla Geosynthetics Private Limited and became a public company with a fresh certificate on September 23, 2024 (DRHP p.2). It started with supply and installation of geosynthetics and moved into scientific landfills, landfill capping and biomining; its first government order came in 2014 (DRHP p.199, DRHP p.256).

Revenue comes from three lines (DRHP p.210):

• Services: scientific landfilling and capping, biomining, and turnkey geosynthetic installation at sites such as reservoirs, golf courses and oil storage yards (DRHP p.217).
• Products: geomembranes, geotextiles, clay liners, geogrids, geocells and other sheets bought from manufacturers and sold on (DRHP p.222).
• By-products: refuse-derived fuel (RDF), "biosoil" and wood scrap recovered from biomined waste and sold to cement plants and recyclers (DRHP p.225).

The company is not a manufacturer and says installed capacity does not apply to it (DRHP p.234). At August 31, 2026 it owned 15 items of plant and machinery and hired 5 more, and had 95 employees, 71 of them in projects (DRHP p.208, DRHP p.232). It works from a leased registered office in Chennai and a regional office in Bengaluru (DRHP p.235).

Earnings equation: for biomining, Revenue = tonnes of legacy waste processed × rate per tonne; for installation, Revenue = square metres installed × rate. The document gives volumes: 5,15,250 tonnes biomined and 8,95,555 square metres of geosynthetics installed in FY26 (DRHP p.139). Biomining revenue of ₹25.8 crore in FY26 over those tonnes is about ₹501 a tonne, against about ₹467 a tonne in FY24 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.217, DRHP p.139). Installation revenue is not split out, so no rate per square metre can be worked out.

03Where the money comes from

By line (₹ crore):

Source: DRHP p.217, DRHP p.218, DRHP p.307, converted from ₹ lakh. Services were 44.53% of FY24 revenue and 86.39% of FY26 (DRHP p.218). Of FY26 product revenue, 91.23% was "by-products and other trading products" (DRHP p.225). In FY24 and FY25 product revenue also included trading in "certain commodity products", which stopped in FY26; the document does not say what they were (DRHP p.332, DRHP p.336). The company changed its objects clause in September 2026 to allow trading in edible oils, including crude degummed soyabean oil (DRHP p.251).

By customer type, government and public sector clients were 29.36% of FY24 revenue and 51.11% of FY26 (DRHP p.228). Work done as a sub-contractor to another contractor was 70.64% of FY24 revenue and 48.89% of FY26 (DRHP p.34).

By state, Karnataka brought 68.74% of FY26 revenue, up from 21.24% in FY24; Tamil Nadu fell from 48.73% to 13.49%; Jharkhand was 14.38% (DRHP p.36).

Gorantla Geosynthetics customers: how concentrated the revenue is

Source: DRHP p.26, DRHP p.27. Revenue does depend on a few customers: five customers brought ₹68.7 crore of FY26 revenue of ₹74.3 crore (DRHP p.27). The largest FY26 customer brought ₹23.0 crore (DRHP p.229). No customer is named in this table, and there are no long-term contracts that oblige customers to give more work (DRHP p.27).

Related-party sales, from the related-party note: in FY24 the company sold ₹10.7 crore (₹1,065.65 lakh) to LRK Geotech Private Limited and ₹2.8 crore to the promoter, Praveenkumar Gorantla, and in FY25 ₹5.7 crore to LRK Geotech Private Limited, an enterprise over which key managerial personnel and their relatives exercise significant influence (DRHP p.83). The concentration table does not name its customers, so the document does not say which of them these are (DRHP p.230).

On the supply side, the largest supplier was 27.02% of FY26 cost of goods sold and the top ten 63.74% (DRHP p.33). The related-party note records purchases of ₹7.5 crore from Geo Dukan in FY24 and ₹5.9 crore from RRR Wastetech Private Limited in FY25, both related parties (DRHP p.83); the supplier table does not name its suppliers (DRHP p.33). Purchases are on purchase orders, with no long-term supply contracts (DRHP p.33).

04The growth record

Gorantla Geosynthetics financials: revenue, profit and margins

Source: DRHP p.76, DRHP p.78, DRHP p.79, DRHP p.139, converted from ₹ lakh. Revenue went from ₹57.3 crore in FY24 to ₹74.3 crore in FY26 and profit after tax from ₹7.5 crore to ₹11.6 crore (DRHP p.78). Borrowings in the table are long-term plus short-term borrowings as shown in the balance sheet, which include finance lease obligations in FY25 and FY26; excluding leases, borrowings at March 31, 2026 were ₹41.9 crore (DRHP p.76, DRHP p.321).

Our arithmetic over FY24 to FY26:

• Revenue grew about 13.8% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78); the company states 13.84% (DRHP p.201).
• EBITDA grew about 25.6% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.139).
• Profit after tax grew about 24.9% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78); the company states 24.95% (DRHP p.201).
• EBITDA margin moved from 23.94% to 29.12%, up 518 basis points, so from 23.9% to 29.1% rounded (DRHP p.139).

The year ends on March 31 throughout. The restatement changed profit: FY24 profit was ₹7.2 crore as audited and ₹7.5 crore restated, FY25 ₹8.4 crore audited and ₹7.6 crore restated, and FY26 ₹11.3 crore audited and ₹11.6 crore restated (DRHP p.316, DRHP p.317, DRHP p.318). The FY25 cut came largely from reversing a ₹0.95 crore exceptional gain from building depreciation already corrected in the opening balance, and from tax restated into the right years (DRHP p.302, DRHP p.317). The examining firm reports no qualifications in the statutory auditor's reports (DRHP p.290).

What sits around the record:

• Cash: operating cash flow was −₹1.9 crore in FY26, ₹8.9 crore in FY25 and −₹11.1 crore in FY24 (DRHP p.79). In FY26 receivables absorbed ₹28.4 crore of cash (DRHP p.79).
• Other income was ₹0.19 crore, about 1.2% of FY26 profit before tax of ₹16.2 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78). In FY24 it was ₹2.1 crore, about 19.1% of profit before tax, including ₹0.95 crore of supplier discounts and ₹0.35 crore of profit on gold bullion (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78, DRHP p.307).
• Debt: borrowings excluding leases were ₹41.9 crore at March 31, 2026 (DRHP p.321), debt to equity 0.95 times, so 1.0× rounded (DRHP p.139), and net debt of ₹41.5 crore about 1.9× FY26 EBITDA (our arithmetic, DRHP p.321, DRHP p.77, DRHP p.139). Return on capital employed was 23.93%, so 23.9% rounded (DRHP p.139). Finance cost was ₹4.8 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.78).
• Customers and suppliers: the largest customer was 30.93% of FY26 revenue, so 30.9% rounded, the top five 92.54%, so 92.5%, and the top ten 96.60%, so 96.6% (DRHP p.27); the top ten suppliers were 63.74% of FY26 cost of goods sold, so 63.7% (DRHP p.33).
• Related-party sales: sales to related parties were ₹18.0 crore in FY24 (₹2.8 crore to the promoter and ₹15.2 crore to LRK Geotech Private Limited and RRR Wastetech Private Limited), ₹9.7 crore in FY25 and nil in FY26 (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83).
• Contingent liabilities: an income tax demand of ₹4.7 crore for assessment year 2022-23, under appeal, and capital commitments of ₹5.8 crore (DRHP p.81).
• Order book: ₹235.6 crore at March 31, 2026, including a ₹120.0 crore letter of intent on which no work has started (DRHP p.27).
• Use of the issue: ₹21.2 crore of the fresh issue for equipment and ₹20.0 crore for working capital (DRHP p.120).
• Industry: the company describes itself as a solid waste management and geosynthetics company (DRHP p.198).

05What the growth is made of

Revenue rose ₹17.0 crore from FY24 to FY26 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.78).

Services up: services revenue rose from ₹25.5 crore to ₹64.1 crore, an increase of ₹38.6 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.307). Within that, turnkey projects went from ₹9.2 crore to ₹30.0 crore, landfilling and capping from ₹0.24 crore to ₹8.3 crore, and biomining from ₹16.1 crore to ₹25.8 crore (DRHP p.217, DRHP p.218).

Products down: product and by-product revenue fell from ₹31.8 crore to ₹10.1 crore, a fall of ₹21.7 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.307). The company puts this down to the end of its trading operations and lower geosynthetic product sales, which fell from ₹7.1 crore in FY25 to ₹0.89 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.336).

Volume: legacy waste biomined rose from 3,45,000 tonnes in FY24 to 5,15,250 tonnes in FY26, and geosynthetics installed from 3,50,500 to 8,95,555 square metres (DRHP p.139). At the FY24 rate of about ₹467 a tonne, the extra tonnes account for roughly ₹7.9 crore of the ₹9.7 crore rise in biomining revenue; the rest is a higher rate per tonne (our arithmetic, DRHP p.139, DRHP p.217).

Geography: Karnataka revenue went from ₹12.2 crore to ₹51.0 crore, while Tamil Nadu fell from ₹27.9 crore to ₹10.0 crore (DRHP p.36).

Related parties running down: sales to related parties were about 31.5% of FY24 revenue and nil in FY26, so the FY24 base leans on them (our arithmetic, DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83, DRHP p.78).

The document does not give installation revenue apart from other turnkey work, or the rates on each contract, so the rest of the increase cannot be split into volume and price. That is the finding.

06Earnings quality

The item that needs explaining is receivables. They were ₹65.9 crore at March 31, 2026, up from ₹37.7 crore a year earlier (DRHP p.77). Of that, ₹34.7 crore was under six months past due, ₹14.6 crore six months to a year, ₹8.9 crore one to two years and ₹1.5 crore more than two years; ₹6.1 crore was unbilled (DRHP p.309). On top of receivables, retention money of ₹8.7 crore sits in non-current assets, and retention plus margin money came to ₹12.7 crore (DRHP p.305, DRHP p.30). The company puts the longer collection down to more government work, where payment waits on certification (DRHP p.128).

Write-offs: ₹3.2 crore of bad debts were written off in FY25 and ₹0.17 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.308). In FY25 the company also wrote off fixed assets that "were not in existence" (DRHP p.302).

07The balance sheet

At March 31, 2026 total assets were ₹113.3 crore: trade receivables ₹65.9 crore, other non-current assets ₹20.5 crore (retention money ₹8.7 crore, capital advances ₹6.2 crore, margin money deposits ₹4.0 crore), property, plant and equipment ₹13.0 crore (₹9.3 crore of it buildings), other current assets ₹7.9 crore and cash and bank balances ₹0.46 crore (DRHP p.76, DRHP p.77, DRHP p.302, DRHP p.305). Against them: short-term borrowings ₹30.8 crore, long-term borrowings ₹12.0 crore, trade payables ₹10.1 crore, other current liabilities ₹11.1 crore and net worth ₹44.1 crore (DRHP p.76).

Borrowings at March 31, 2026 (DRHP p.323 to DRHP p.326):

• ICICI Bank cash credit ₹16.9 crore at repo rate plus 3.5%.
• Yes Bank cash credit ₹6.8 crore and Yes Bank term loan ₹5.6 crore, secured on property.
• SIDBI term loan ₹7.0 crore and SIDBI working capital ₹0.50 crore.
• NSIC raw material assistance ₹4.9 crore at 10.25%.

The promoter and promoter group had given personal guarantees of ₹36.3 crore at March 31, 2026 (DRHP p.85). Bank guarantees outstanding were ₹18.5 crore (DRHP p.58). Cash and bank balances of ₹0.46 crore were almost entirely margin money against guarantees (DRHP p.306).

The company owns one property, a 1,476.55 sq. ft. apartment on Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, bought for ₹3.8 crore in 2018 and listed as a guest house (DRHP p.235). The Yes Bank term loan is secured on a flat on Sterling Road, Nungambakkam (DRHP p.325). It also holds 987 grams of gold and jewellery at a cost of ₹0.67 crore as an investment (DRHP p.305).

Source: DRHP p.321, DRHP p.120. The capitalisation statement leaves the post-issue column blank (DRHP p.321). The working capital plan for FY27 still uses ₹30.0 crore of borrowings and ₹10.9 crore of internal accruals beside ₹20.0 crore from the issue, and assumes receivable days fall to 180 (DRHP p.127).

08What the money is for

Gorantla Geosynthetics IPO objects: what the money is for

Source: DRHP p.120, DRHP p.131. The rupee size of the fresh issue depends on a price not yet set, so the share of each object cannot be worked out (DRHP p.119).

Equipment, ₹21.2 crore: four Terex tracked trommel screens at ₹2.6 crore each, two Jainum trommel lines at ₹2.9 crore each, three Ecoster 500 tonnes a day biomining sets at ₹0.99 crore each, two Ecoster shredders at ₹0.40 crore each, a CX220 LC excavator at ₹0.67 crore and an Eicher tipper at ₹0.42 crore, all from quotations dated September 2026 and excluding GST (DRHP p.122, DRHP p.123). No orders are placed (DRHP p.121).

Orders are planned within a month of receiving the money, with delivery, installation and start-up over the following three to five months, all in FY27 (DRHP p.124, DRHP p.125). GST and any cost increase are to come from internal accruals (DRHP p.124).

Working capital, ₹20.0 crore: in FY27, towards a projected requirement of ₹60.9 crore (DRHP p.127).

The objects have not been appraised by any bank or financial institution (DRHP p.132). A monitoring agency is to be appointed (DRHP p.132).

Into the business the fresh issue of up to 40,00,000 shares, at a price not yet set (DRHP p.1). To selling shareholders nothing: there is no offer for sale (DRHP p.1).

09Who is selling

Gorantla Geosynthetics IPO offer for sale: who is selling

Nobody. The whole issue is a fresh issue of up to 40,00,000 shares of ₹10, and the document marks the offer for sale "not applicable" (DRHP p.1). The promoter and promoter group will not take part in the issue (DRHP p.118).

10Promoters

The promoter is Praveenkumar Gorantla, Chairman and Managing Director, aged 47, with a B.Com. and over 20 years in waste management and geosynthetics, and a director since incorporation (DRHP p.260, DRHP p.282). Praveenkumar Gorantla holds 68,43,690 shares, 66.84% before the issue (DRHP p.282). The document lists Radhakrishna G as the promoter's father, Latharani G.R. as mother, Saiswethashree G.P as spouse and B Sangeethalakshmi as sister, all in the promoter group (DRHP p.285). Radhakrishna G and Latharani G.R. left the board in September and December 2025 (DRHP p.270).

Pay: the managing director was paid ₹0.54 crore in FY24 and ₹1.2 crore in each of FY25 and FY26 (DRHP p.83), and ₹1.5 crore a year from April 1, 2026 (DRHP p.267). In FY24 the company also gave the promoter a salary advance of ₹1.5 crore (DRHP p.83).

Other businesses: the promoter holds no other directorships; the promoter's interests are two HUFs and the LRK Charitable Trust (DRHP p.283). The promoter left Jathin Environment Solutions LLP on September 9, 2026 (struck off) and closed a proprietorship on January 31, 2025 (DRHP p.284). LRK Geotech Private Limited, RRR Wastetech Private Limited, Geo Dukan and Jathin Environment Solutions LLP are listed as enterprises in which key managerial personnel and relatives exercise significant influence (DRHP p.82).

Property and guarantees: the registered office is leased from Radhakrishna G for three years from February 1, 2026 at ₹1.5 lakh a month (DRHP p.235). The promoter has personally guaranteed the bank loans (DRHP p.46, DRHP p.85). No promoter shares are pledged (DRHP p.113).

Regulatory: the company is seeking a SEBI exemption because Ashirwad Ramesh Bingi, the promoter's brother-in-law and a promoter group member, has not given information or consent; the application is pending (DRHP p.32). The company has applied to compound loans given to directors and their relatives in FY22 to FY24 in breach of Section 185, now repaid (DRHP p.39).

Cases: no criminal proceedings and no regulatory actions against the promoter or directors (DRHP p.353). The promoter is a party, with the company, to a consumer dispute with a builder over car parks (DRHP p.353).

Promoter economics: the promoter's 9,639 shares of ₹100 were built from the 2006 subscription, transfers at ₹100 in 2009 and 101 shares on a loan conversion at ₹13,000 in 2020, less 12 shares transferred at ₹14,200 in September 2024; they became 96,390 shares on the split and 68,43,690 after the 70:1 bonus of February 2025 (DRHP p.112, DRHP p.113). The average cost is ₹0.34 a share (DRHP p.114). Saiswethashree G P sold 8,32,306 shares at ₹11.79 between February and December 2025 and was allotted 4,48,255 shares at ₹125 on September 7, 2026 for consideration other than cash (DRHP p.142, DRHP p.104).

11Who already owns it

Gorantla Geosynthetics promoter holding before and after the IPO

Source: DRHP p.108, DRHP p.109. There are 1,02,39,510 shares of ₹10 before the issue and 79 shareholders (DRHP p.74, DRHP p.114). If all 40,00,000 new shares are issued, the total becomes 1,42,39,510 shares and the promoter's 66.84% becomes about 48.1%, so 66.8% → 48.1% (our arithmetic, DRHP p.109). Promoter and promoter group together go from 81.72% to about 58.8%, so 81.7% → 58.8% (our arithmetic, DRHP p.108). The document leaves the after-issue holding blank (DRHP p.109).

The largest public holder is Insko Projects Private Limited with 2,00,000 shares, 1.95% of the pre-issue capital in one table and 2.04% in another (DRHP p.109). In January 2025 the company placed 6,895 shares at ₹8,371 each, before the 70:1 bonus, with 18 investors including Matterhorn India Fund, Vardan Signature Growth Fund, Knightstone Capital LLP and Ativir Securities Private Limited (DRHP p.101, DRHP p.102). The document does not show any of them at 1% or more today.

12What changed just before the IPO

• Revenue and profit: revenue went from ₹57.3 crore in FY24 to ₹74.3 crore in FY26 and profit after tax from ₹7.5 crore to ₹11.6 crore (DRHP p.78).
• Receivables: receivable days went from 149 in FY24 to 255 in FY26 (DRHP p.30).
• Promoter pay went from ₹0.54 crore in FY24 to ₹1.2 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.83).
• Conversion: public company with a fresh certificate dated September 23, 2024 (DRHP p.2).
• Share split: ₹100 to ₹10, approved October 8, 2024 (DRHP p.101).
• Pre-IPO placement: 6,895 shares at ₹8,371 on ₹10 shares to 18 investors, January 4, 2025 (DRHP p.101).
• Bonus issue: 70:1, allotted February 6, 2025, 96,53,350 shares (DRHP p.101).
• Last allotment before the IPO: 4,48,255 shares to Saiswethashree G P at ₹125, for consideration other than cash, September 7, 2026; the ₹5.6 crore equals the "amount payable pursuant to termination" owed to Sai Swetha Sree at March 31, 2026, which at March 31, 2025 was described as an "Advance Payable towards Sale of Building" (DRHP p.104, DRHP p.301, DRHP p.329).
• Related parties: sales to and purchases from related enterprises stopped in FY26 (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83).
• Auditor: no change; B. Purushottam & Co. was re-appointed for five years on September 29, 2025 (DRHP p.91).
• Officers: four company secretaries and two chief financial officers appointed between January 2024 and June 2026; the current company secretary joined May 5, 2026 and the chief financial officer June 15, 2026 (DRHP p.279, DRHP p.280).
• Board: four independent directors appointed between November 2024 and March 2026 (DRHP p.270, DRHP p.271).
• Loans: a SIDBI term loan of ₹7.0 crore in August 2025, and a run of small high-interest unsecured loans closed between December 2025 and March 2026 (DRHP p.298, DRHP p.299).
• Objects clause: widened on September 12, 2026 to include leachate treatment, battery recycling and edible oil trading (DRHP p.253, DRHP p.254).

13Capacity and expansion

Source: DRHP p.234, DRHP p.120. The document says installed capacity does not apply because the company does not manufacture (DRHP p.234). Work done: 5,15,250 tonnes of legacy waste biomined and 8,95,555 square metres of geosynthetics installed in FY26 (DRHP p.139). Owned equipment includes trommel screens from Ecoster, Terex and Jainum, a belt conveyor, a shredder and a weighbridge; three trommels and two shredders are rented (DRHP p.231).

The new equipment includes three Ecoster sets each quoted for about 500 tonnes a day over ten hours, and two shredders of up to 5 tonnes an hour (DRHP p.122). The document does not say how many tonnes a year the full set of new machines adds, so the step from equipment to revenue cannot be made here.

14Market size and industry structure

Gorantla Geosynthetics industry: market size and growth

As claimed: the industry chapter is drawn from "Industry Report on Geosynthetics & Solid Waste Management Industry" by Infomerics Analytics & Research Private Limited, dated August 05, 2026, which the company commissioned and paid for in connection with the issue (DRHP p.23, DRHP p.148). The commissioned report gives one market size: the Indian geosynthetics market at USD 1.5 billion in 2025 (DRHP p.166). It gives no rupee size for solid waste management services, landfill engineering or biomining.

The part that is addressable: the company sells services (biomining, landfill lining and capping, turnkey installation) and resells geosynthetic products it does not make (DRHP p.198, DRHP p.32). The geosynthetics figure is for products, while services were 86.39% of the company's FY26 revenue (DRHP p.218). The chapter does not size the services the company mainly sells.

What the company is today: FY26 revenue of ₹74.3 crore against a geosynthetics product market given only in US dollars; the document gives no exchange rate for it, so no share can be stated from the filing (DRHP p.78, DRHP p.166).

Size over time: the commissioned report projects the Indian geosynthetics market to grow from USD 1.5 billion in 2025 to USD 2.3 billion by 2030, a rate of 9.04% a year, according to the report (DRHP p.166). It gives no earlier years. On waste, it cites Swachh Bharat Mission data showing municipal solid waste generation between about 1.40 lakh and 1.62 lakh tonnes a day from 2016 to 2025, with the share processed rising from 18% in 2016 to 80% in 2024 and 2025 (DRHP p.177).

Segments: by product, the report puts geotextiles at about 55% to 60% of the geosynthetics market and geomembranes, geogrids, geonets, geocells, geocomposites and clay liners at the remaining 40% to 45% (DRHP p.167). By application it lists solid waste management, roads, railways, drainage, soil reinforcement and others (DRHP p.163, DRHP p.164). The company sits in the solid waste management application and in the services side of the chain: landfill lining, capping and dumpsite remediation (DRHP p.173, DRHP p.195).

What drives demand: the chapter names the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026, in force from April 1, 2026, with four-stream segregation and stricter landfill norms (DRHP p.186); Swachh Bharat Mission Urban 2.0 with an outlay of ₹1,41,600 crore (DRHP p.186); the Dumpsite Remediation Accelerator Programme, aiming at about 2,476 dumpsites holding about 25 crore tonnes of waste (DRHP p.186); and legacy waste still to be remediated of 300.34 lakh tonnes in Maharashtra, 132.86 lakh tonnes in Karnataka and 69.91 lakh tonnes in Tamil Nadu (DRHP p.179).

For geosynthetics it points to central capital expenditure of ₹12.21 lakh crore in FY27, about ₹5.73 lakh crore of it for roads, railways, water and power (DRHP p.171). The National Infrastructure Pipeline lists 46 solid waste management projects worth USD 1.61 billion (DRHP p.179).

Structure: the chapter describes competition shaped by regulation, scale and execution, with large integrated players better placed for big municipal projects (DRHP p.191). It names Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Antony Waste Handling Cell Limited and Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited as key players (DRHP p.193). The risk factors add that geosynthetic supply has low entry barriers, unorganised players and importers, and that price often decides tenders (DRHP p.54, DRHP p.55). No market shares are given.

Inputs and trade: geosynthetics are made from polypropylene, polyethylene, polyester and PVC, whose prices follow crude oil (DRHP p.170, DRHP p.185). The chapter shows Indian polymer production of 13,367.15 thousand tonnes in FY2025 (DRHP p.170). The company imported nothing in FY26 and exported ₹0.22 crore of goods in FY24 (DRHP p.312).

Rules: geotextiles covered by a quality control order must carry the BIS Standard Mark, and geomembranes have their own Indian Standards, licensed to manufacturers (DRHP p.55). Waste work runs under consents from state pollution control boards and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 (DRHP p.233).

What the chapter says can go wrong: limited segregation and processing infrastructure, high capital cost of engineered landfills, land and approval delays, polymer price swings and low awareness of geosynthetics (DRHP p.185). The SWOT names high dependence on government spending, long receivable cycles and margins exposed to crude-linked prices (DRHP p.195). It also notes that municipalities generate only about 39% of the funds they spend (DRHP p.330).

15Competitive position

Gorantla Geosynthetics competitors

Source: DRHP p.139, DRHP p.140, converted from ₹ lakh. Garware's revenue is about 21 times the company's and Antony Waste's about 14 times (our arithmetic, DRHP p.140).

What the company puts forward: a record in government and municipal projects since 2014, combined supply, installation and turnkey work, ISO 9001, 14001 and 45001 and SA 8000 certificates, and membership of the International Geosynthetics Society and certification from the International Association of Geosynthetic Installers (DRHP p.201, DRHP p.205, DRHP p.206). Against that: a tender win rate of 10.53% in FY26, five customers bringing 92.54% of revenue, no manufacturing, no exclusive supply arrangements, and completion certificates missing for most private projects (DRHP p.35, DRHP p.27, DRHP p.32, DRHP p.62).

16Peers the company named

Peers named in the offer document: Garware Technical Fibres Limited and Antony Waste Handling Cell Limited (DRHP p.137).

Garware makes technical textiles including geosynthetics, and Antony Waste runs municipal waste collection, processing and landfills; the company neither manufactures nor collects waste (DRHP p.193, DRHP p.32). Both are far larger. The document shows a P/E of 38.61 for Garware and 13.83 for Antony Waste at closing prices of September 28, 2026, and an industry average of 26.22 (DRHP p.136, DRHP p.137). The company's FY26 EPS is ₹11.88 on ₹10 shares (DRHP p.135). With no price band, no P/E for the company can be stated.

17Risks, in plain words

Gorantla Geosynthetics IPO risks

Customers: the top five customers were 92.54% of FY26 revenue and the largest 30.93% (DRHP p.27) → losing one would remove a share of revenue the company cannot quickly replace, since it wins about one tender in ten → the FY26 tender success rate was 10.53% (DRHP p.35).

Order book: ₹120.0 crore of the ₹235.6 crore order book is a non-binding letter of intent, with no work started (DRHP p.27) → it may never become a contract → it is 50.94% of the order book (DRHP p.27).

Geography: Karnataka brought 68.74% of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.36) → a change in that state's budgets or policy would hit most of the business → ₹51.0 crore of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.36).

Financial: cash and working capital: receivable days were 255 and operating cash flow −₹1.9 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.30, DRHP p.79) → growth is paid for with bank credit guaranteed by the promoter → borrowings excluding leases were ₹41.9 crore and personal guarantees ₹36.3 crore (DRHP p.321, DRHP p.85).

Promoters: related parties: related enterprises were the largest customer in FY24 and the largest supplier in FY24 and FY25 (DRHP p.230, DRHP p.33, DRHP p.83) → part of the earlier record was trade within the group → related-party sales were ₹18.0 crore in FY24 (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83).

Legal: tax: an income tax demand for assessment year 2022-23 on additions for unexplained loans and investment is under appeal (DRHP p.355) → if upheld it is a cash outflow → ₹4.7 crore including interest, against FY26 profit of ₹11.6 crore (DRHP p.355, DRHP p.78).

Regulation: company law: many forms were filed late, one by 4,522 days, two special resolutions were never filed, loans to directors broke Section 185, and some old records cannot be traced (DRHP p.39, DRHP p.43) → penalties and further action are possible → no amount is quantified (DRHP p.39).

Issue-specific: the promoter group disclosure is incomplete pending a SEBI exemption, the NSIC no-objection for the issue is still awaited, and the restated statements were examined by a firm other than the statutory auditor (DRHP p.32, DRHP p.45, DRHP p.30) → any of these can delay the issue → the NSIC facility outstanding was ₹4.9 crore (DRHP p.326).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Cases against Gorantla Geosynthetics and its promoters

Criminal: none by or against the company, promoter, directors or key managerial personnel (DRHP p.351, DRHP p.353, DRHP p.354). Regulatory: no actions by statutory or regulatory authorities against the company or promoter (DRHP p.353). Tax: the income tax demand rose from ₹2.5 crore to ₹4.7 crore after a July 2026 rectification taxed the additions at 60% under Section 115BBE (DRHP p.355).

The company had paid ₹0.50 crore as a 20% pre-deposit (DRHP p.355). Railway: the Northern Railway contract worth ₹27.0 crore was cancelled for delay, and the EMD of ₹0.14 crore and guarantee of ₹1.4 crore were forfeited; the company claims a further ₹2.1 crore of costs (DRHP p.311). Filings: 45 late ROC filings are listed, from 2008 to 2026 (DRHP p.40 to DRHP p.43).

19Related-party transactions

Source: DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83, converted from ₹ lakh. G. Radhakrishna was paid rent of ₹0.18 crore in FY26 and holds a rental deposit of ₹0.15 crore (DRHP p.84). In FY24 the company sold investments of ₹2.6 crore to the promoter, family members, HUFs and LRK Geotech Private Limited (DRHP p.83). At March 31, 2025 the company owed G. P.

Sai Swetha Sree ₹7.0 crore, described as an advance payable towards sale of a building; ₹1.4 crore was returned in FY26 "pursuant to termination" and the remaining ₹5.6 crore was settled by the September 2026 share allotment (DRHP p.84, DRHP p.85, DRHP p.301, DRHP p.104). The document does not say which building or why the sale ended.

What appeared or changed in the two years before filing: sales to and purchases from related enterprises ended after FY25; rent to G. Radhakrishna began in FY25; the building advance appeared in FY25 and was settled in shares in 2026 (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83, DRHP p.84). Promoter group guarantees rose from nil at March 2024 to ₹36.3 crore at March 2026 (DRHP p.85).

20What the offer document does not say

Customers in the concentration table are not named. What the FY24 and FY25 "commodity products" trading was is not said (DRHP p.332). Contract rates, and installation revenue apart from other turnkey work, are not given, so growth cannot be split fully into volume and price. Segment profit is not given. The Indian market for landfill, capping and biomining services is not sized; the only market figure is for geosynthetic products, in US dollars (DRHP p.166).

What building the ₹7.0 crore advance from G. P. Sai Swetha Sree was for, and why the sale was terminated, is not explained (DRHP p.301). Whether M/s Jathin Infra Private Limited, the source of the ₹120.0 crore letter of intent and two ongoing projects, has any link to Jathin Environment Solutions LLP, which the document lists as a related party, is not said (DRHP p.204, DRHP p.82).

The tonnes a year the new equipment adds are not stated. The issue size in rupees, the price band, general corporate purposes and issue expenses are blank (DRHP p.120, DRHP p.131). The after-issue shareholding is blank (DRHP p.109).

Some inconsistencies are recorded as document matters, not business ones: Insko Projects Private Limited is 2.04% of capital in one table and 1.95% in another (DRHP p.109); FY25 biomining revenue is ₹17.16 crore in the business chapter and ₹17.15 crore in the MD&A (DRHP p.217, DRHP p.336); the income tax demand outstanding is ₹347.31 lakh in one sentence and ₹359.06 lakh plus interest in the next (DRHP p.355);

the litigation summary in the risk factors shows a tax matter against a director while the litigation chapter shows none (DRHP p.44, DRHP p.354); and the lender NOCs are described as received in one place while the NSIC NOC is described as outstanding in another (DRHP p.358, DRHP p.45).

21Five questions for management

1. Who were the five FY26 customers that brought 92.54% of revenue, and how much of each was government work and how much sub-contracting?
2. What goods made up the FY24 and FY25 "commodity products" trading, who were the buyers and sellers, and what margin did it earn?
3. Of the ₹65.9 crore of receivables at March 31, 2026, how much was collected by September 30, 2026, and how much is retention money awaiting completion certificates?
4. Is M/s Jathin Infra Private Limited connected with Jathin Environment Solutions LLP, and when will the ₹120.0 crore letter of intent become a signed contract?
5. Which building was G. P. Sai Swetha Sree's ₹7.0 crore advance for, why was the sale terminated, and how was the ₹125 a share price for the settlement set?

1Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 1 document the company filed. The 174 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.