Ue Press Tools Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: designs and makes sheet metal stamping tools (press tools, progressive tools, dies, jigs and fixtures) and uses them to make precision stamped parts such as seat belt anchors, buckle straps, retractor frames, steering brackets and levers, plus a small line of injection moulded parts (AP p.2, DRHP p.120, DRHP p.121).

Who pays it: vehicle makers and their Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers, supplied directly (DRHP p.120). No customer is named in the pages read. The largest customer was 19.06% of FY26 revenue and the top ten 70.22% (DRHP p.25). Customers in Tamil Nadu were 86.50% of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.24).

Why it is raising money: up to ₹1,550.00 lakh for working capital and up to ₹1,465.00 lakh to repay IndusInd Bank loans, plus general corporate purposes capped at 15% of the gross proceeds or ₹10 crore, whichever is lower (DRHP p.81, DRHP p.86).

How fast it has grown: revenue from ₹11,845.25 lakh in FY24 to ₹16,490.15 lakh in FY26, about 18.0% a year, and profit after tax from ₹437.87 lakh to ₹1,122.91 lakh, about 60.1% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.50).

The one thing to understand: this is a business that has grown on borrowed money and a shift towards tooling. Borrowings rose from ₹4,585.19 lakh to ₹7,935.45 lakh over the two years (AP p.6), and tooling and die making went from 15.39% to 25.18% of revenue, about half of the revenue increase (our arithmetic, DRHP p.122).

02The business, in plain words

Before a car part can be stamped out of a steel sheet in thousands, someone has to build the tool that does the stamping: a set of hardened steel dies that cut, pierce and bend the sheet in one or more strokes of a press. This company does both jobs. It designs and builds such tools for customers, and it runs its own presses to make the parts, many of them used in seat belts, airbags, steering columns and seats (DRHP p.121, DRHP p.126).

A vehicle maker or component supplier sends a part drawing → the company designs and builds a press tool, or uses one it has built → steel sheet is blanked, pierced, formed, coated by outside firms and inspected → the company is paid for the tool, for the parts, and for scrap it sells.

The company was incorporated in Chennai on September 19, 2017 and became a public company on May 27, 2025 (DRHP p.55). It runs six units in Tamil Nadu: four at Thirumullaivoyal, one at Ambattur and one at Asanur in Kallakurichi district; Unit 4 is the tool room and Unit 3 does injection moulding (DRHP p.120, DRHP p.127). Three of the premises are rented, generally on 11-month agreements (DRHP p.24). It holds IATF 16949, ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 certificates (DRHP p.129). A seventh unit is planned at Periyanesalur, Cuddalore district, on land allotted by the state industrial corporation (DRHP p.143).

At July 31, 2026 it had 909 on-roll employees, 578 of them in operations and 150 in the tool room and maintenance (DRHP p.139). Some tool-making steps, such as pre-machining and heat treatment, are sent out, and 82 of the 532 tools made in FY26 were made outside (DRHP p.120). Exports were 1.38% of FY26 revenue, to the United States, Canada, China and Germany (DRHP p.128).

Earnings equation: Revenue ≈ (tools delivered × price a tool) + (parts shipped × price a part) + scrap. The document gives tool counts but no part volumes or prices. In FY26, 532 tools were made against tooling revenue of ₹4,152.03 lakh, about ₹7.8 lakh a tool (our arithmetic, DRHP p.122, DRHP p.138). Cost of material consumed was 55.33% of total income in FY26 (DRHP p.252).

03Where the money comes from

Source: DRHP p.122. By product, sheet metal components were 68.16% of FY26 revenue, tooling 25.18%, structural and seating components 5.74%, automotive engineering components 0.89% and injection moulded parts 0.04% (DRHP p.128). By state, Tamil Nadu was 86.50% of FY26 revenue, Maharashtra 8.24%, Andhra Pradesh 2.43%, Rajasthan 1.03% and Karnataka 0.42% (DRHP p.128).

Source: DRHP p.25. Revenue depends on a few customers, and more so than two years ago: the top ten went from about two fifths of revenue in FY24 to about seven tenths in FY26. There are no long-term contracts; sales run on purchase orders (DRHP p.25). The company served 103 active customers in FY26, 40 of them repeat customers (DRHP p.130). Purchases are also concentrated: the largest supplier was 25.17% of FY26 purchases, the top five 60.74% and the top ten 73.34% (DRHP p.26).

04The growth record

Source: DRHP p.50, DRHP p.51, DRHP p.94, AP p.6. The company computes EBITDA margin on total income, not on revenue (DRHP p.94).

Our arithmetic over FY24 to FY26: revenue grew about 18.0% a year, EBITDA about 48.1% and profit after tax about 60.1% (our arithmetic, DRHP p.50). EBITDA margin rose from 10.6% to 16.6%, 604 basis points, and PAT margin from 3.7% to 6.8%, 311 basis points (DRHP p.94). Year by year, revenue rose 6.27% in FY25 and 31.00% in FY26 (DRHP p.94). In rupees, revenue went from ₹118.5 crore to ₹164.9 crore and profit after tax from ₹4.4 crore to ₹11.2 crore (DRHP p.50). The company describes its business as dependent on customers in the automotive industry (DRHP p.30).

Return on capital employed in FY26 was 16.4% and debt to equity 1.8 times, against 1.87 in FY24 (DRHP p.94). Net debt, borrowings of ₹7,935.45 lakh less cash and bank balances of ₹1,240.76 lakh, was about 2.4 times FY26 EBITDA (our arithmetic, DRHP p.49); part of those deposits is held as collateral or margin money (DRHP p.194). Operating cash flow was ₹1,622.86 lakh in FY26, about ₹16.2 crore (DRHP p.51). Other income of ₹85.04 lakh was 5.4% of profit before tax in FY26, against 3.94% in FY24 (DRHP p.214). The restated statements show no contingent liabilities and no capital commitments in any of the three years (DRHP p.52).

Profit has been restated. Audited profit after tax was ₹1,125.52 lakh in FY26, ₹866.90 lakh in FY25 and ₹449.80 lakh in FY24; adjustments for gratuity not provided, depreciation miscalculated, interest on late tax and on late payments to small suppliers, and tax effects bring them to the figures above (DRHP p.185).

05What the growth is made of

Mostly tooling, then components. Tooling and die making rose from ₹1,822.81 lakh in FY24 to ₹4,152.03 lakh in FY26, and component manufacturing from ₹9,161.82 lakh to ₹11,199.59 lakh (DRHP p.122). Of the ₹4,645.77 lakh rise in revenue on that basis, tooling contributed about 50% and components about 44%, with scrap the rest (our arithmetic, DRHP p.122).

On volume, the document gives tool counts but not part counts. Tools made rose from 398 in FY24 to 532 in FY26, up 34%, while tooling revenue rose 128%, so revenue a tool went from about ₹4.6 lakh to about ₹7.8 lakh (our arithmetic, DRHP p.122, DRHP p.138).

The tool count includes tools made by outside firms, and the document says tools vary in size and complexity, so the rise cannot be split cleanly into more tools and bigger tools (DRHP p.138). For components, actual production hours across the stamping and moulding units rose about 5.7% from FY24 to FY26 while component revenue rose about 22.2% (our arithmetic, DRHP p.122, DRHP p.137, DRHP p.138).

The offer document does not disclose parts shipped or prices by product, so the component increase cannot be separated into volume and price.

The margin rise has three parts the document itself shows. Material cost fell from 69.67% of total income in FY24 to 55.33% in FY26, which the company attributes to better material use and to the larger share of tooling, which uses less raw material (DRHP p.252, DRHP p.257, DRHP p.126). Direct expenses rose from 13.08% to 20.22%, with wages in that line up from ₹413.37 lakh to ₹1,546.25 lakh (DRHP p.196, DRHP p.252).

Employee benefit expense fell from 8.21% to 5.26%, which the company says is partly a reclassification of overtime, night-shift and house-rent allowances from salary into wages after FY24 (DRHP p.252, DRHP p.257). Directors' remuneration in employee cost also halved, from ₹288.00 lakh to ₹144.00 lakh (DRHP p.197).

06Earnings quality

Cash flow is higher than profit because depreciation and interest, ₹1,191.04 lakh together in FY26, are added back (DRHP p.51). The cash then went out again on plant: ₹7,376.33 lakh of property, plant and equipment was bought over the three years, funded largely by new borrowing (our arithmetic, DRHP p.51).

The item that needs explaining is the bank statements. The company pledges stock and receivables to IndusInd Bank and files quarterly statements. In every quarter of FY26 the book debts reported to the bank were higher than the books, by ₹471.69 lakh, about ₹4.7 crore, in the March 2026 quarter (DRHP p.224). The company's explanation is that statements were “inadvertently submitted” without recording receipts from debtors (DRHP p.224). The same page also states that the quarterly statements agree with the books (DRHP p.224). Similar differences, in both directions, appear for FY25 and FY24 (DRHP p.225, DRHP p.226).

07The balance sheet

At March 31, 2026 total assets were ₹15,620.43 lakh: property, plant and equipment ₹9,451.06 lakh, inventories ₹2,291.38 lakh, trade receivables ₹1,928.11 lakh, cash and bank balances ₹1,240.76 lakh, capital advances ₹288.21 lakh and short-term loans and advances ₹264.51 lakh (DRHP p.49). Against that sat long-term borrowings of ₹5,239.49 lakh, short-term borrowings of ₹2,695.96 lakh, trade payables of ₹1,426.48 lakh, other current liabilities of ₹1,061.45 lakh, deferred tax of ₹657.62 lakh and net worth of ₹4,443.41 lakh (DRHP p.49).

Borrowings of ₹7,935.45 lakh were ₹7,740.78 lakh secured (term loans ₹6,496.23 lakh, cash credit ₹1,239.47 lakh, vehicle loans ₹5.08 lakh) and ₹194.67 lakh unsecured (interest-free loans from promoters ₹106.22 lakh and invoice financing ₹88.45 lakh) (DRHP p.233, DRHP p.191).

The lenders are Small Industries Development Bank of India, IndusInd Bank and Export Import Bank of India, secured on the company's plots, plant and fixed deposits and on personal guarantees from all six promoters (DRHP p.37, DRHP p.238). CRISIL rated the ₹84 crore of bank facilities BB+/Stable long term and A4+ short term on July 1, 2026 (DRHP p.58). By September 20, 2026 secured borrowings were ₹7,939.43 lakh (DRHP p.87).

Contingent liabilities and capital commitments are nil (DRHP p.222).

After the issue, as far as the arithmetic goes: repaying ₹1,465.00 lakh from the proceeds would take borrowings from ₹7,935.45 lakh to about ₹6,470.45 lakh on March 2026 figures, and the share count would rise from 1,68,01,000 to 2,28,31,000 on full allotment (our arithmetic, DRHP p.46, DRHP p.49). The rupee size of the fresh issue is not set, so post-issue net worth cannot be stated.

08What the money is for

Source: DRHP p.81, DRHP p.82. The loans to be repaid, as at September 20, 2026, are ₹1,028.94 lakh of a cash credit line with ₹1,083.41 lakh outstanding, a machinery loan of ₹218.06 lakh and an emergency credit line loan of ₹218.00 lakh, all with no prepayment penalty (DRHP p.88).

The company's working capital estimate is ₹3,041.64 lakh at March 2027 and ₹3,973.76 lakh at March 2028, to be met by bank borrowing of ₹1,000.00 lakh a year, internal accruals and the issue (DRHP p.83). That estimate rests on the company's own assumption of revenue of ₹21,437.20 lakh in FY27 and ₹27,868.35 lakh in FY28, and on holding inventory at 47 days and receivables at 37 days (DRHP p.84).

This study states the assumption and does not use it.

None of the objects has been appraised by a bank or other agency, and no monitoring agency is required because the issue is under ₹5,000 lakh (DRHP p.58, DRHP p.90). Nothing from the issue funds the planned Unit 7 or any new machinery (DRHP p.81).

Into the business the fresh issue: up to 60,30,000 new shares, not priced at draft stage (DRHP p.46). To selling shareholders nothing: there is no offer for sale (DRHP p.1).

09Who is selling

No one. The issue is entirely a fresh issue of up to 60,30,000 shares, not priced at draft stage, and the offer for sale is nil (DRHP p.1, DRHP p.46). Offer for sale: none (DRHP p.1). The company states that promoters and the promoter group will not take part in the issue (DRHP p.80). The certified weighted average cost of acquisition is ₹2.68 a share for each of the six promoters (DRHP p.39). Because all the money raised goes to the company, the share count rises by the full 60,30,000 shares on full allotment, and the new shares would be about 26.4% of the enlarged capital (our arithmetic, DRHP p.46).

10Promoters

There are six promoters (DRHP p.1). K. Panneer Selvan, aged about 42, is Chairman and Managing Director, a director since 2017, with a diploma in mechanical engineering and over 17 years in automotive operations and engineering (DRHP p.167, DRHP p.156). Vinoth S, aged about 42, is Whole-Time Director, an engineering graduate of Anna University with over 12 years' experience, responsible for day-to-day operations (DRHP p.168, DRHP p.156).

G Lakshmi, aged about 50, is Executive Director and has studied to matriculation, with over 11 years' experience (DRHP p.169, DRHP p.156). J Giri, aged about 55, is Chief Technical Officer and has studied to matriculation, with about 20 years' experience (DRHP p.169, DRHP p.34). Sobana, aged about 35, and M Yasodha, aged about 38, were directors from 2017 to 2024 and are now employees (DRHP p.167, DRHP p.168, DRHP p.170).

The document states the relationships: K. Panneer Selvan is the spouse of Sobana, Vinoth S the spouse of M Yasodha, and J Giri the spouse of G Lakshmi (DRHP p.166). The one promoter group shareholder, Santhosh Kumar G, is listed as the son of J Giri and G Lakshmi (DRHP p.171). The document says there is no relationship between the directors (DRHP p.157). The promoters have no other ventures; three sole proprietorships run by J Giri, K. Panneer Selvan and G Lakshmi were closed between March 2023 and March 2025 (DRHP p.169, DRHP p.171). There is no group company (DRHP p.173).

Pay: the three executive directors were paid ₹48.00 lakh each in FY26 (DRHP p.158), and the approved ceiling is ₹1,20,00,000 a year each for the Managing Director and the Whole-Time Director (DRHP p.157). Directors' remuneration was ₹288.00 lakh in FY24 and ₹144.00 lakh in FY26, while salary to relatives of key managerial personnel, a class that lists only Sobana, M Yasodha and J Giri, went from nil to ₹144.00 lakh (DRHP p.53). Taken together, promoter pay was ₹288.00 lakh in both years, about ₹2.9 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.53). G Lakshmi also receives ₹30,000 a month as landlord of Unit 3 (DRHP p.142).

Pledges, guarantees and cases: no promoter share is pledged (DRHP p.73). All six promoters have personally guaranteed the company's bank loans (DRHP p.37). There are no criminal, civil or regulatory proceedings against the promoters; there are 15 direct-tax demands totalling ₹0.67 lakh, all but three of them small TDS demands against K. Panneer Selvan (DRHP p.266).

Promoter economics: every share was issued at ₹10, face value, through subscription and rights issues from 2017 to 2020 and through conversion of promoter loans into equity from 2020 to 2023, with four bonus issues in between (DRHP p.66). The bonuses were 83:350 in July 2020, 150:599 in March 2021, 5:16 in December 2022 and 3:50 on December 21, 2024 (DRHP p.69).

The last allotment for consideration was ₹10 a share, October 2023, when ₹116.00 lakh of loans were converted into 11,60,000 shares, before the bonus (DRHP p.66). The only transfer since is one share from J Giri to Santhosh Kumar G at ₹10 in May 2025 (DRHP p.74). The weighted average cost of acquisition is ₹2.68 a share for every promoter (DRHP p.39).

11Who already owns it

Source: DRHP p.72, DRHP p.73; the after column is our arithmetic on full allotment of 60,30,000 shares. The company has seven shareholders: the six promoters and Santhosh Kumar G, promoter group, with one share (DRHP p.73, DRHP p.76). There is no outside shareholder, no private equity, no institution and no employee stock option scheme (DRHP p.71, DRHP p.166). Promoter holding goes from 100.0% to 73.6% on full allotment (our arithmetic, DRHP p.73). The promoters lock in 45,66,200 shares for three years as the promoters' contribution (DRHP p.76). There is no pre-IPO investor holding 1% or more.

12What changed just before the IPO

• A bonus issue of 3:50 on December 21, 2024 added 9,51,000 shares, taking the count to 1,68,01,000, using ₹95.10 lakh of reserves (DRHP p.66, DRHP p.190).
• No pre-IPO placement. Apart from the bonus, no shares were issued in the 18 months before filing, and there was no secondary transaction of 5% or more (DRHP p.97, DRHP p.98). Pre-IPO placement: none (DRHP p.97).
• The company became a public company in May 2025, with a fresh certificate dated May 27, 2025 (DRHP p.55).
• The statutory auditor changed. Sethuraman Prabhu & Associates resigned on December 10, 2024, citing other assignments, and Sreevathson V Associates was appointed on December 21, 2024 and reappointed for five years on September 29, 2025 (DRHP p.59).
• The board was rebuilt in December 2024. Sobana, M Yasodha and J Giri left the board on December 10, 2024; K. Panneer Selvan became Managing Director and Vinoth S Whole-Time Director, and two independent directors and a non-executive director joined (DRHP p.159). A Chief Financial Officer was appointed in February 2025 (DRHP p.166).
• Promoter pay moved from directors' fees to salaries: directors' remuneration halved to ₹144.00 lakh while salary to the three promoters who left the board rose to ₹144.00 lakh (DRHP p.53).
• Revenue and profit: revenue rose from ₹118.5 crore in FY24 to ₹164.9 crore in FY26 and profit after tax from ₹4.4 crore to ₹11.2 crore (DRHP p.50). Most of the rise came in FY26, when revenue grew 31.00% (DRHP p.94).
• Customer concentration rose: the largest customer went from 14.36% of FY24 revenue to 19.06% in FY26, and the top ten from 43.01% to 70.22% (DRHP p.25). The top five suppliers were 60.74% of FY26 purchases, against 65.21% in FY24 (DRHP p.26).
• Maharashtra grew: revenue from customers there rose from ₹243.90 lakh in FY25 to ₹1,359.29 lakh in FY26, served through a third-party warehouse in Pune (DRHP p.126).
• New capacity came on: Unit 5 was established in 2023 and Unit 6 in 2025 (DRHP p.152). Capacity utilisation across the units averaged about 72.8% at March 2026 (DRHP p.37). After March 2026 civil work began on phase one of Unit 7 (DRHP p.248).
• Working capital: inventory days went from 35 to 47 and receivable days from 41 to 37 over FY24 to FY26 (DRHP p.84).
• Borrowing rose from ₹4,585.19 lakh at March 2024 to ₹7,935.45 lakh at March 2026, and by March 2025 the company owed its directors ₹113.51 lakh in interest-free loans, against nil a year earlier (AP p.6, DRHP p.191).
• Statements to the bank drifted from the books: book debts reported to IndusInd Bank exceeded the books in every quarter of FY26, by ₹471.69 lakh, about ₹4.7 crore, at March 2026 (DRHP p.224).
• Headcount rose from 412 at the start of FY24 to 769 at the end of FY26, and attrition fell from 10.59% to 6.65% (DRHP p.140).
• Filings were regularised: in September 2026 the company filed three compounding and three adjudication applications with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs over procedural lapses in past rights issues and loan conversions, which are pending (DRHP p.26, DRHP p.27).

13Capacity and expansion

Source: DRHP p.137, DRHP p.138, DRHP p.248; utilisation is certified by a chartered engineer and measured against 85% of available hours. The tool room, Unit 4, made 532 tools in FY26, 450 of them in-house (DRHP p.138). Utilisation fell at Unit 1 from 73.16% in FY24 and at Unit 2 from 83.64%, while Unit 5 grew from 3,108 available hours in FY24 to 76,881 in FY26 (DRHP p.137, DRHP p.138).

The issue funds no capacity. Unit 7's size, cost and funding are not stated in the pages read; its land is security for a SIDBI loan (DRHP p.212). The chain from capacity to revenue is not drawn in the document, and capacity is measured in machine hours, not parts, so it cannot be turned into output.

14Market size and industry structure

As claimed: the industry chapter draws on public sources, mainly IMARC Group, IBEF and SIAM web pages; no report commissioned by the company is cited (DRHP p.111, DRHP p.113, DRHP p.119). It puts the global tooling market at USD 290.6 billion in 2025 and the Indian tooling market at USD 20.1 billion in 2025 (DRHP p.111, DRHP p.113). It puts India's precision engineering market at USD 536.0 million in 2025 and the Indian auto component industry's turnover at ₹6,73,000 crore in FY25 (DRHP p.116, DRHP p.117).

The part that is addressable: press tools and precision stamped parts for vehicle safety, steering and seating systems, sold mainly in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. The document does not size that part.

What the company is today: ₹16,490.15 lakh of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.50), about 0.02% of the auto component turnover figure the document cites (our arithmetic, DRHP p.117).

On structure, the document describes an auto component industry split between an organised segment supplying vehicle makers and an unorganised segment serving the aftermarket (DRHP p.118). It says the company competes with domestic and international makers on quality, engineering capability, price, delivery and relationships (DRHP p.143). It argues its parts are used whatever the powertrain, since it makes no engine, transmission or exhaust parts (DRHP p.126).

15Competitive position

Source: DRHP p.94, DRHP p.96, DRHP p.97. What the document puts forward as reasons customers come to the company: tooling and parts under one roof, so a part made on the company's own tool would need a new tool to move elsewhere; approval for safety-critical seat belt and steering parts; IATF 16949 certification; and location in the Chennai automotive cluster (DRHP p.125, DRHP p.126). The switching point is the company's own reasoning, not a figure (DRHP p.126). Against that: 86.50% of revenue from one state, 70.22% from ten customers, 60.74% of purchases from five suppliers, and some second-hand machinery imported from Japan (DRHP p.24, DRHP p.25, DRHP p.26, DRHP p.35).

16Peers the company named

Peers named in the offer document: Automotive Stampings & Assemblies Ltd, Bimetal Bearings Ltd and SPR Auto Technologies Limited (DRHP p.93).

The document calls their business profile comparable but does not say how (DRHP p.93). By FY26 revenue, Automotive Stampings & Assemblies is about 5.4 times the company, Bimetal Bearings about 1.8 times and SPR Auto Technologies about 27 times (our arithmetic, DRHP p.94, DRHP p.96, DRHP p.97). Automotive Stampings & Assemblies had negative net worth of ₹737.04 lakh in FY24, which is why its return on net worth reads 76.54% (DRHP p.93, DRHP p.96).

Bimetal Bearings carries almost no debt and earns a return on capital of 5.68% (DRHP p.96). The document prints an industry price to earnings range of 21.77 to 35.96, average 27.91, on September 22, 2026 prices (DRHP p.92); with no price band, no comparison with this issue can be made.

17Risks, in plain words

Customers: the top ten were 70.22% of FY26 revenue and the largest 19.06% (DRHP p.25) → there are no long-term contracts, only purchase orders (DRHP p.25) → losing the largest customer would remove about a fifth of revenue.

Region: customers in Tamil Nadu were 86.50% of FY26 revenue and all six units are in the state (DRHP p.24) → a regional slowdown, power problem or labour disruption reaches most of the business at once.

Industry: the company depends on customers in the automotive and related industries (DRHP p.30) → a fall in vehicle production reduces orders for both tools and parts.

Suppliers: the top five suppliers were 60.74% of FY26 purchases and the largest 25.17% (DRHP p.26) → material cost was 55.33% of FY26 total income (DRHP p.252), so supply or price shocks pass straight into margins.

Debt: borrowings of ₹7,935.45 lakh against net worth of ₹4,443.41 lakh, debt to equity 1.79 (DRHP p.49, DRHP p.94) → finance cost was ₹590.15 lakh in FY26, up 37.11% (DRHP p.255) → only ₹1,465.00 lakh of the proceeds goes to repayment, and the company plans ₹1,000.00 lakh a year of new bank borrowing for working capital (DRHP p.83, DRHP p.86).

Reporting to lenders: book debts in the quarterly bank statements differed from the books in each of the last three years, by ₹471.69 lakh in the March 2026 quarter (DRHP p.224) → lenders lend against these statements.

Premises: three manufacturing premises, including the tool room at Ambattur, are rented on agreements of about 11 months, and the Asanur plot still awaits its sale deed (DRHP p.24, DRHP p.143) → a lease not renewed would mean moving plant.

Compliance record: 25 filings with the Registrar of Companies were late, one by almost eight years, and EPF, ESIC, TDS and GST payments were late in several years, one TDS payment by 126 days (DRHP p.27, DRHP p.28, DRHP p.33) → six compounding and adjudication applications on share issues are pending (DRHP p.27). Consents to operate and a fire certificate for some units are still being applied for (DRHP p.29).

Issue-specific: there is no price band, the general corporate purposes amount is blank, the objects are not appraised, and the promoters' average cost is ₹2.68 a share (DRHP p.39, DRHP p.58, DRHP p.81).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Criminal matters: none against or by the company, its directors, promoters or key managerial personnel (DRHP p.264, DRHP p.265, DRHP p.266). Civil: no material civil litigation, with materiality set at ₹40.48 lakh (DRHP p.264). Actions by regulators: none (DRHP p.265). The compounding and adjudication applications concern procedural lapses under Section 62 of the Companies Act in past rights issues and conversions of directors' loans into shares; the document says any penalty cannot yet be known (DRHP p.26, DRHP p.27). Dues to creditors at March 2026 were ₹1,426.48 lakh, of which ₹748.64 lakh was owed to three material creditors, named only on the company's website (DRHP p.267).

19Related-party transactions

Source: DRHP p.53; the loan rows add the key personnel and relatives columns (our arithmetic, DRHP p.53). Rent paid to related parties was ₹31.80 lakh in FY24 and ₹11.52 lakh in FY26, and reimbursements to key personnel ₹71.07 lakh and ₹39.22 lakh (our arithmetic, DRHP p.53, DRHP p.54). At March 2026 the company owed directors and relatives ₹106.22 lakh in interest-free loans (DRHP p.54). The related enterprises are three sole proprietorships of directors and Finetech Enterprises, a firm in which a director is a partner (DRHP p.53); P Rajakrishnan, a non-executive director, is a partner of Fine Tech Enterprises (DRHP p.156).

What appeared or changed in the two years before filing: directors' pay was cut and salaries to Sobana, M Yasodha and J Giri began after they left the board in December 2024; promoter loans of ₹113.51 lakh appeared in FY25 (DRHP p.53, DRHP p.191); the three proprietorships were closed between March 2023 and March 2025 (DRHP p.171); and a rent agreement with G Lakshmi for Unit 3 was signed on August 1, 2026 (DRHP p.142). The FY25 table also shows ₹36.00 lakh of salary paid to an enterprise over which key personnel have influence, which the pages read do not explain (DRHP p.53).

20What the offer document does not say

No customer or supplier is named in the pages read. Part volumes and prices by product are not given, so price and mix cannot be separated from volume for components. Capacity is given in machine hours, not in parts. The size, cost, timing and funding of Unit 7 are not set out. The age of the ₹1,261.40 lakh of work in progress is not given. The ₹36.00 lakh salary to a related enterprise in FY25 is not explained. The issue price, the general corporate purposes amount, the issue expenses and the market maker are left blank.

Some document inconsistencies are worth recording as document matters, not business ones. The abridged prospectus heads its FY26, FY25 and FY24 geography table as Fiscal 2025, 2024 and 2023 (AP p.2).

The abridged prospectus names SIDBI and IndusInd Bank as the lenders to be repaid, while the DRHP names IndusInd only (AP p.4, DRHP p.86), and the DRHP describes the cash credit to be repaid as ₹1,090.00 lakh in one place and ₹1,028.94 lakh in its table (DRHP p.85, DRHP p.88). One page says there has been no conversion of loans into equity, while the capital history shows six conversions (DRHP p.152, DRHP p.66).

The segment table carries ₹1,134.73 lakh of scrap as Other, while the product table spreads the same total across products (DRHP p.122, DRHP p.128). The provident fund register shows 973 employees against 909 on-roll employees on the same date (DRHP p.140, DRHP p.126). The bank-statement note both lists differences and says the statements agree with the books (DRHP p.224).

The former auditor is spelt Sethuraman Prabhu in one place and Sethuraman Prabu in another (DRHP p.59, DRHP p.177). A risk factor refers to a new manufacturing unit under the objects of the issue, which fund no capacity (DRHP p.25, DRHP p.81). The management discussion credits FY26 growth partly to better capacity utilisation, while utilisation fell at Units 1 and 2 (DRHP p.254, DRHP p.137).

21Five questions for management

1. How much of the ₹2,329.22 lakh rise in tooling revenue from FY24 to FY26 came from more tools and how much from larger or more complex tools, and what share of tools led to part orders?
2. Why did book debts reported to IndusInd Bank exceed the books by ₹471.69 lakh at March 2026, and have the statements since been corrected?
3. What will Unit 7 cost, how will it be funded, and what capacity in machine hours or parts will it add?
4. What were the ₹1,261.40 lakh of work in progress at March 2026, and how much had been billed by September 2026?
5. Which customer made up 19.06% of FY26 revenue, and how much of the top ten's revenue is tooling rather than parts?

2Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 2 documents the company filed. The 149 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.