Lalsai Global Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: manufactures and processes dehydrated vegetables and herbs, fried dehydrated vegetables, dried spices and dried seeds, and offers freeze-dried products, from one facility at Mahuva in Bhavnagar district, Gujarat (AP p.2, DRHP p.27).

Who pays it: 135 customers served in FY26 across 24 countries and 16 states and one union territory in India, of which 17 were repeat customers producing ₹2,078.63 lakh, 19.26% of revenue; the largest customer was 9.72% of FY26 revenue and the top ten 56.64% (DRHP p.26, DRHP p.195).

Why it is raising money: ₹2,910.00 lakh to set up a new manufacturing facility at Mahuva, ₹550.00 lakh for working capital and ₹274.60 lakh for machinery at the existing facility, with general corporate purposes left blank (DRHP p.98).

How fast it has grown: revenue rose from ₹6,644.30 lakh in FY24 to ₹10,793.87 lakh in FY26, about 27.5% a year, and profit after tax from ₹101.39 lakh to ₹583.37 lakh, about 139.9% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.129).

The one thing to understand: the existing plant is nearly full. Installed capacity was 4,100 tonnes in FY26 against 3,895 tonnes used, an average utilisation of 95.00%, which is why the largest object is a second plant rather than working capital (DRHP p.129, DRHP p.205).

02The business, in plain words

Fresh onion is 85% or more water, seasonal, and perishable. Dried onion is none of those things: it keeps, it ships cheaply, and a food manufacturer can measure it. Drying is the whole business, and the margin sits in buying the crop well and getting the yield and the grade right.

A food company or spice blender needs dried onion or garlic → it places a purchase order → the company buys the crop from farmers and at regulated markets, dries, grades and packs it at Mahuva → the company keeps what is left after the crop, power, labour and interest.

The business began as the partnership firm Lalsai Dehy Foods under a deed dated August 3, 2013, and was converted into the public limited company Lalsai Global Limited on June 3, 2024 (DRHP p.2). It sources under a dual model, directly from farmers and through Agricultural Produce Market Committee regulated markets, from 324 suppliers in FY26 (DRHP p.195, DRHP p.27). Products are sold under the company's own brands (DRHP p.195). There is one operating facility, at Mahuva, and the prospectus carries its loss or shutdown as a risk factor (DRHP p.27).

Earnings equation: Profit = tonnes sold × (price − crop, power and packing cost) − employee cost − interest. In FY26 EBITDA was ₹1,102.45 lakh on revenue of ₹10,793.87 lakh, a margin of 10.21% (DRHP p.129).

03Where the money comes from

Source: DRHP p.28, DRHP p.195.

Two products are about seven eighths of the business, and one of them, onion, is nearly three quarters (DRHP p.28). Garlic fell from ₹2,146.57 lakh in FY25 to ₹1,417.56 lakh in FY26 while onion rose (DRHP p.28). Gujarat and Maharashtra together were 44.07% of FY26 revenue, against 37.70% in FY24 (DRHP p.25).

Source: DRHP p.26.

More than half the revenue comes from ten customers, and no customer is more than 10%. There are no long-term contracts and no marketing tie-ups; sales run on individual purchase orders (DRHP p.26). Of the 135 customers served in FY26, 17 were repeat customers, and those 17 produced ₹2,078.63 lakh, 19.26% of revenue (DRHP p.26). On the buying side, the top ten suppliers were 54.32% of FY26 purchases against 42.50% in FY24, from 324 suppliers in FY26 against 358 in FY24 (DRHP p.27).

04The growth record

Source: DRHP p.129, DRHP p.39.

Return on equity was 9.56%, 30.26% and 60.58%; return on capital employed 8.97%, 19.45% and 25.56%; debt to equity 2.01, 5.15 and 2.45 times; working capital days 164, 103 and 103 (DRHP p.129). Our arithmetic over the two years from FY24 to FY26: revenue rose about 27.5% a year and profit after tax about 139.9% a year; EBITDA margin widened 519 basis points and PAT margin 384 basis points (DRHP p.129). The prospectus prints a revenue CAGR of 27.46% on the same basis (DRHP p.129).

Net asset value per share was ₹123.41 at March 2026 and earnings per share ₹5.12 (DRHP p.127, DRHP p.128). Those two are not on the same share count: the net asset value is computed on the 10,36,845 shares outstanding at March 2026, while the earnings per share is computed on the 1,14,05,295 shares outstanding after the bonus issue of July 2, 2026 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.80, DRHP p.127).

05What the growth is made of

Volume, and the price of onion. Capacity used rose from 3,330 tonnes in FY24 to 3,404 in FY25 and 3,895 in FY26, an increase of 17.0% over two years, while revenue rose 62.5% over the same period (our arithmetic, DRHP p.129). So most of the revenue increase is realisation and mix rather than tonnage. The prospectus does not print realisation per tonne, so the split cannot be made exactly.

Within the mix, dehydrated onion went from ₹4,869.16 lakh to ₹7,818.32 lakh while garlic went from ₹1,150.06 lakh to ₹2,146.57 lakh and back to ₹1,417.56 lakh (DRHP p.28). Exports went from ₹2,047.53 lakh to ₹4,203.74 lakh and from 31.02% to 39.37% of revenue (DRHP p.195).

The margin moved more than either: EBITDA margin went from 5.02% to 10.21% in two years (DRHP p.129). The prospectus carries the volatility of raw material pricing, driven by seasonal factors, as its own risk factor, which cuts both ways (DRHP p.27).

06Earnings quality

Cash conversion is the better part of this record: operating cash flow was negative ₹129.47 lakh in FY24 but ₹575.64 lakh in FY25 and ₹1,396.02 lakh in FY26, against profit of ₹274.28 lakh and ₹583.37 lakh in those years (DRHP p.39, DRHP p.129). Payable days moved a long way in the company's favour, with payable turnover going from 5.57 times to 19.30 times, which is a shortening of credit taken, while inventory turnover more than doubled (DRHP p.129).

The item to watch is leverage through the cycle: debt to equity went from 2.01 times to 5.15 times in FY25 and back to 2.45 times in FY26, in a business that buys a seasonal crop (DRHP p.129). The prospectus records that unsecured loans taken by the company can be recalled by the lenders at any time (DRHP p.44).

07The balance sheet

At March 2026 net worth was ₹1,279.59 lakh, made up of share capital of ₹103.68 lakh and reserves of ₹1,175.91 lakh (DRHP p.56). On the debt to equity ratio of 2.45 times that implies total borrowings of about ₹3,135 lakh (our arithmetic, DRHP p.129, DRHP p.56). Inventories were ₹2,034.00 lakh and trade receivables ₹1,207.23 lakh; cash and bank balances were ₹13.68 lakh (DRHP p.56).

Property, plant and equipment was ₹881.76 lakh with capital work in progress of ₹975.13 lakh, which is more than the gross block already in use (DRHP p.56). The current ratio was 1.16 times (DRHP p.129). There are no contingent liabilities and no capital or other commitments (DRHP p.60).

After the issue: ₹3,184.60 lakh of the proceeds goes into the new facility and machinery, against property, plant and equipment of ₹881.76 lakh and capital work in progress of ₹975.13 lakh already on the books (our arithmetic, DRHP p.98, DRHP p.56). None of the proceeds repays debt.

08What the money is for

Source: DRHP p.98, and our arithmetic on the shares.

Nearly four fifths of the money builds a second plant in the same town as the first. The case for it is in the capacity figures: the existing facility ran at an average utilisation of 95.00% in FY26 (DRHP p.205). The prospectus states that orders have not yet been placed for the capital expenditure to be funded from the proceeds, and that the funding requirement and proposed deployment have not been appraised by any independent agency (DRHP p.29, DRHP p.32). General corporate purposes are capped at 15% of gross proceeds or ₹10 crore, whichever is lower (DRHP p.98).

Into the business the whole issue: up to 42,18,000 new shares, priced later (DRHP p.98). To selling shareholders nothing: there is no offer for sale (AP p.1).

09Who is selling

No one. The issue is up to 42,18,000 new shares issued by the company, and the abridged prospectus records the offer for sale as not applicable (AP p.1, DRHP p.98). The number of shares is subject to finalisation of the basis of allotment (AP p.1).

10Promoters

The promoters are Vinod D Jobanputra, Mukesh Kanaiyalal Lalvani, Variyani Kishor Tarachand and Smit Mukeshbhai Lalwani (DRHP p.2). Vinod Dilipbhai Jobanputra is Managing Director, Mukesh Kanaiyalal Lalvani is Chairman and Whole Time Director, and Smit Mukeshbhai Lalwani is Chief Financial Officer (DRHP p.56, DRHP p.62).

Promoter economics: the four hold 82,99,819 shares, 72.77% of the capital before the issue, in the proportions 25.17%, 22.85%, 23.76% and 1.00% (DRHP p.87). Those holdings come almost entirely from the bonus issue of July 2, 2026, which allotted 1,03,68,450 shares in the ratio of ten for every one held, capitalising ₹1,140.53 lakh of the share premium account and taking the share count from 10,36,845 to 1,14,05,295 (DRHP p.80).

Before the conversion from a partnership, the same individuals were partners; in FY24 they drew remuneration of ₹74.00 lakh in total and took shares of profit, and in FY26 they drew salaries of ₹32.00 lakh each for three of them and ₹5.16 lakh for the fourth (our arithmetic, DRHP p.62). During FY25, partner and director loans of ₹300.00 lakh were converted into equity in a non-cash transaction (DRHP p.59).

Interest was paid to the promoters and their relatives in FY26: ₹47.88 lakh, ₹14.00 lakh, ₹6.25 lakh, ₹27.23 lakh and ₹4.90 lakh (DRHP p.62).

11Who already owns it

The promoters hold 72.77% before the issue and the promoter group a further share, including Pradeep Tarachand Variyani at 7.78% and Dilipbhai Narayandas Jobanputra at 8.00% (DRHP p.87). Two years before the filing the company had seven shareholders holding 10,00,000 shares between them, including Tarachand Kanaiyalal Lalvani at 15.66% and Pradeep Tarachand Variyani at 13.33% (DRHP p.87). No fund, institution or outside company is recorded as a shareholder in the pages read. The paid-up capital is 1,14,05,295 shares of ₹10 before the issue; after a full issue of 42,18,000 shares it would be 1,56,23,295, at which the promoters would hold about 53.1% (our arithmetic, DRHP p.80, DRHP p.98).

12What changed just before the IPO

• The partnership firm Lalsai Dehy Foods was converted into the public limited company Lalsai Global Limited on June 3, 2024 (DRHP p.2).
• Partner and director loans of ₹300.00 lakh were converted into equity during FY25 in a non-cash transaction (DRHP p.59).
• Debt to equity rose from 2.01 times in FY24 to 5.15 times in FY25 and fell back to 2.45 times in FY26 (DRHP p.129).
• Installed capacity rose from 3,700 tonnes to 4,100 tonnes and utilisation reached 95.00% (DRHP p.129, DRHP p.205).
• Capital work in progress rose to ₹975.13 lakh at March 2026, more than the ₹881.76 lakh of property, plant and equipment in use (DRHP p.56).
• A bonus of ten shares for every one held, 1,03,68,450 shares, was allotted on July 2, 2026 by capitalising ₹1,140.53 lakh of share premium, leaving ₹146.56 lakh of surplus in the profit and loss account (DRHP p.80).
• Export revenue rose from 31.90% of revenue in FY25 to 39.37% in FY26 (DRHP p.195).
• The prospectus records fourteen instances of delayed filings with the Registrar of Companies, including a Form MGT-14 filed 394 days late for a resolution increasing remuneration (DRHP p.39, DRHP p.40).

13Capacity and expansion

Source: DRHP p.129, and our arithmetic on the percentages; the prospectus states an average capacity utilisation of 95.00% at March 31, 2026 (DRHP p.205). The single facility at Mahuva is the whole of the company's manufacturing, and the prospectus carries its loss or shutdown as a risk factor (DRHP p.27).

The proposed capital expenditure is for a new facility at Mahuva and additional plant and machinery at the existing one, which the company says is intended to support future operational requirements given the present utilisation (DRHP p.205, DRHP p.98).

The prospectus does not state the capacity in tonnes that the new facility will add, and the capacity figures are certified by a chartered engineer whose estimates the prospectus says may not be comparable across the industry (DRHP p.49).

14Market size and industry structure

As claimed: the industry chapter draws on Ken Research and sets out a product taxonomy for the Indian dehydrated food ingredients market covering dehydrated vegetables and herbs, dried spices and dried seeds (DRHP p.141). The prospectus does not print a rupee size for that market in the pages read.

The part that is addressable: dehydrated vegetables, herbs, spices and seeds sold to food manufacturers and blenders in India and in the 24 countries the company exports to (DRHP p.195).

What the company is today: ₹10,793.87 lakh of FY26 revenue from one plant that processed 3,895 tonnes (DRHP p.129).

Structure, as the prospectus describes it: raw material prices are seasonally volatile, demand comes substantially from the fast-moving consumer goods industry, the sector is subject to evolving Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regulation including stricter inspections and labelling norms, and government policies on subsidies and incentives for food processing can change (DRHP p.27, DRHP p.43, DRHP p.35, DRHP p.33).

15Competitive position

Source: DRHP p.128; the revenue figures are total revenue. The prospectus identifies only one listed industry peer, so there is no range to compare against (DRHP p.127). The company is about 2.6 times the peer's revenue but earns less profit on it (our arithmetic, DRHP p.128). What it offers on its own account is a dual sourcing model taking crop directly from farmers and through regulated markets, a pan-India sourcing network, its own brands, and a plant running at 95.00% utilisation (DRHP p.195, DRHP p.205).

16Peers the company named

Peers named in the offer document: Sawaliya Food Products Limited (DRHP p.127).

Source: DRHP p.128; the price is the NSE closing price of September 2, 2026. With one peer, the prospectus records the highest, lowest and average industry P/E as the same number, 15.94 (DRHP p.127). One point about the document itself: the text immediately above that table states that the peer's P/E ratio is 31.21, while the table gives 15.94 for the same company on the same date (DRHP p.127, DRHP p.128). The two do not agree. No price band exists yet, so no comparison of this issue against either figure can be made at this stage.

17Risks, in plain words

One plant: all manufacturing is at a single facility at Mahuva, Gujarat (DRHP p.27) → a fire, a flood or a licence problem stops the whole company → that facility ran at 95.00% utilisation in FY26, so there is no spare line to fall back on (DRHP p.205).

Two products: dehydrated onion and garlic were 86.48% of FY26 revenue, and onion alone 73.21% (DRHP p.28) → a bad onion crop or a price collapse moves the whole result → garlic revenue already fell from ₹2,146.57 lakh in FY25 to ₹1,417.56 lakh in FY26 (DRHP p.28).

Crop prices: raw material pricing is subject to seasonal volatility, and the company buys from farmers and regulated markets without long-term supply arrangements (DRHP p.27) → the input cost is set by a harvest, not a contract → the top ten suppliers were 54.32% of FY26 purchases, up from 42.50% in FY24 (DRHP p.27).

Customers: there are no long-term contracts or marketing tie-ups, and the top ten customers were 56.64% of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.26) → orders can stop at the end of any purchase order → of 135 customers served in FY26, only 17 were repeat customers (DRHP p.26).

The new plant: ₹2,910.00 lakh, 77.9% of the stated objects, builds a facility for which orders have not yet been placed and which no independent agency has appraised (our arithmetic, DRHP p.98, DRHP p.29, DRHP p.32) → cost and timing are management estimates → the prospectus does not state the capacity the new facility will add.

Leverage: debt to equity was 5.15 times in FY25 and 2.45 times in FY26 (DRHP p.129) → a seasonal buyer of crop carries seasonal debt → unsecured loans can be recalled by the lenders at any time, and the financing agreements contain covenants limiting operating flexibility (DRHP p.44, DRHP p.38).

Regulation: the company is subject to evolving Food Safety and Standards Authority of India requirements including stricter inspections and enhanced labelling norms, and to environmental, health and safety regulation (DRHP p.35, DRHP p.34) → a compliance failure can halt sales → the prospectus also flags that inadequate storage conditions may compromise product integrity and that raw materials and finished goods deteriorate in storage (DRHP p.33).

Records and statutory dues: the prospectus lists fourteen delayed filings with the Registrar of Companies, one of them 394 days late, and records instances of delay or default in payment of statutory dues and filing of statutory returns (DRHP p.39, DRHP p.40) → penalties may follow → the company has one outstanding tax deducted at source demand of ₹0.06 lakh (DRHP p.330).

Geography and demand: Gujarat and Maharashtra were 44.07% of FY26 revenue and exports 39.37%, and the company is reliant on demand from the fast-moving consumer goods industry (DRHP p.25, DRHP p.195, DRHP p.43) → a slowdown in either market or a currency move reaches the whole book.

18Litigation and regulatory matters

The only matter of substance touches an independent director rather than the business: a petition under Sections 241, 242 and 213 of the Companies Act before the National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad against Superhard Research Centre Private Limited and others, in which Krishna Hareshbhai Bhatt was impleaded in a former capacity as that company's company secretary and has denied the allegations (DRHP p.328).

19Related-party transactions

Source: DRHP p.62, and our arithmetic on the totals. The pattern changed with the conversion from a partnership: in FY24 the same individuals took remuneration of ₹74.00 lakh and shares of profit, and made or withdrew partner capital; from FY25 they take salaries and are paid interest on loans (our arithmetic, DRHP p.62). During FY25, ₹300.00 lakh of partner and director loans was converted into equity (DRHP p.59). The prospectus carries potential conflicts of interest with a promoter group company as a risk factor (DRHP p.43).

20What the offer document does not say

Realisation per tonne is not disclosed, so the revenue increase cannot be separated into tonnes and price. The capacity in tonnes that the ₹2,910.00 lakh new facility will add, and when it will commission, are not stated. The names of the top ten customers, which are 56.64% of revenue, are not given, nor are the suppliers. The rupee size of the Indian dehydrated food ingredients market is not printed in the pages read.

The reason the prospectus states the single peer's P/E as 31.21 in one place and 15.94 in another is not explained. The issue price, the issue expenses and the amount for general corporate purposes are left blank at this stage.

21Five questions for management

1. What was realisation per tonne for dehydrated onion and for garlic in each of FY24, FY25 and FY26, and how much of the 519 basis point EBITDA margin gain came from crop cost rather than selling price?
2. What capacity in tonnes will the ₹2,910.00 lakh facility add, by when, and at what utilisation does it cover its own depreciation?
3. Why did only 17 of the 135 customers served in FY26 repeat, and what share of FY26 revenue came from customers who also bought in FY25?
4. Why did debt to equity reach 5.15 times in FY25, and what is the peak seasonal borrowing during the onion buying season?
5. Which figure is correct for the single named peer's price to earnings ratio, the 31.21 in the text or the 15.94 in the table?

2Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 2 documents the company filed. The 101 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.