What the company does
The company supplies manual and CNC-controlled plate and pipe cutting systems, MIG, TIG, ARC, SAW and laser welding equipment, plasma systems and customised automation cells.
Its activities span configuration, engineering, fabrication, assembly, testing, installation, commissioning, operator support, spares, consumables, maintenance and retrofit services. FY25 also marked a shift toward on-site manufacturing and assembly for large customised machinery because of space constraints at its Vasai facilities.
In FY26, customised machinery and retrofit work contributed 39.54% of revenue, other services 38.55%, automated machines 18.42% and non-automated machines 3.49%, making project and service execution more material than standard equipment sales.
Technocrats reports more than 2,500 customers, 17 dealers and 14 service locations. The number of customers actually served fell from 273 in FY25 to 180 in FY26 even as revenue rose 166%, indicating a shift toward fewer, larger on-site engagements rather than broad-based transaction growth.
Promoters Arun Kumar and Vandana Sharma have long operating involvement, creating domain continuity alongside key-person and family-control considerations.
Where the IPO money goes
Three-year financial snapshot
| Year | Revenue | EBITDA | PAT | Net worth | Borrowings | Assets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY23 | ₹4.45 Cr | ₹0.77 Cr | ₹1.5 Cr | ₹1.53 Cr | ₹4.15 Cr | ₹11.68 Cr |
| FY24 | ₹6.06 Cr | ₹1.29 Cr | ₹2.2 Cr | ₹3.73 Cr | ₹6.66 Cr | ₹13.55 Cr |
| FY25 | ₹49.35 Cr | ₹8.59 Cr | ₹8.1 Cr | ₹14.24 Cr | ₹10.23 Cr | ₹36.71 Cr |
| FY26 | ₹131.31 Cr | ₹26.29 Cr | ₹14.94 Cr | ₹39.01 Cr | ₹14.73 Cr | ₹72.06 Cr |
Restated financial information from IPO source materials; rounding may create small differences.
FY26 revenue growth
166%
Driven by the execution-model shift and larger on-site projects after FY25's much smaller base.
FY26 EBITDA margin
20.0%
EBITDA reached ₹26.29 crore on ₹131.31 crore of revenue.
FY26 RoNW
56.10%
The final RHP's pre-issue ratio, below 90.21% in FY25; the weighted three-year RoNW was 72.08%.
Fresh issue / FY26 net worth
156.3%
The ₹60.98 crore upper-band gross fresh issue is 1.56× FY26 net worth of ₹39.01 crore and represents 26.40% of post-issue shares.
Cap price / pre-issue NAV
4.36×
Derived from the ₹132 cap and FY26 actual-share-count NAV of ₹30.28; final post-issue NAV was not populated in the RHP.
Three-year promoter lock-in
35,10,500 shares
20.06% of the 1,75,00,000-share post-issue capital: 31,74,500 from Arun Kumar and 3,36,000 from Vandana Sharma. The two 38,44,750-share excess-promoter blocks are derived from the RHP's 1,12,00,000-share promoter total and its 50:50 two-year/one-year rule.
FY26 debt/equity
0.38×
Borrowings rose to ₹14.73 crore, but net worth expanded to ₹39.01 crore.
FY26 operating cash flow
-₹11.66 crore
Negative despite ₹14.94 crore PAT as working-capital balances absorbed cash.
FY26 Maharashtra + Gujarat
75.91%
Revenue remains geographically concentrated despite a national customer and service network.
BSE post-close demand book
62,55,75,000 bids / 189.2241×
Official 5:00 p.m. IST 18 August book against 33,06,000 displayed post-anchor shares: QIB 169.5359×, NII 231.3513× and retail 176.0455×. The pool still includes 2,31,000 market-maker shares; demand equals approximately 203.44× the 30,75,000-share residual public pool by calculation. Issue-price and allotment reconciliation remain pending.
BSE cap-price demand curve
62,35,28,000 shares / 99.67%
BSE's cumulative price-demand table at 7:04:52 p.m. IST shows 62,35,28,000 shares at ₹132 versus 62,55,75,000 at ₹125. The ratio is derived and indicates limited price drop-off within the submitted book; it does not confirm the final issue price or allotment.
FY26 receivables over six months
₹7.55 crore
About 36.0% of ₹20.98 crore total receivables was older than six months, though all receivables were classified as considered good.
FY26 work-in-progress
₹26.08 crore
Work-in-progress represented 78.6% of ₹33.18 crore total inventory and reflects the customised, milestone-based project model.
Project revenue-recognition basis
Cost-to-cost
Revenue is recognised in proportion to actual cost incurred versus estimated total project cost; progress, cost-to-complete, expected revenue and foreseeable-loss estimates can change current-period results.
Projected FY28 working-capital gap
₹73.25 crore
Up from ₹50.77 crore at FY26; the ₹40.00 crore IPO allocation funds ₹20.00 crore in each of FY27 and FY28.
FY26 owned-capacity utilisation
50.08%
35.50 units of production against disclosed installed capacity of 70.88; utilisation was 58.38% in FY25 and 16.05% in FY24.
FY26 employee attrition
38.81%
Down from 60.00% in FY25 but above 27.91% in FY24; FY26 ended with 38 employees after 13 exits.
FY26 contingent liabilities
₹5.52 crore
₹5.22 crore of claims not acknowledged as debt plus ₹0.30 crore of bank guarantees, before any outcome of separate tax litigation.
FY26 top-ten suppliers
93.50%
Up from 43.63% in FY24 and still without formal written long-term supply agreements; FY25 concentration was 93.12%.
Secured fund-based utilisation
90.8%
₹9.08 crore was outstanding against ₹9.99 crore sanctioned at FY26: ₹4.33 crore of cash credit or overdraft and ₹4.74 crore of term loan.
Canara cash-credit cost
11.35%
The ₹5.00 crore limit carried 9.25% plus a 2.10% spread, was payable on demand and had ₹4.33 crore outstanding; company and promoter properties, personal guarantees and subordinated director loans formed part of the security package.
Arka term-loan cost
11.50% floating
₹4.74 crore was outstanding against a ₹4.99 crore facility repayable within 156 months and secured over disclosed residential and industrial properties.
Quantified order book
Not disclosed
The RHP discusses aligning capacity to order-book and product mix but does not publish a pending order value, execution schedule or cancellation-adjusted backlog.
Supplier advances and other current assets
₹14.55 crore
Up 15.3× from ₹0.95 crore in FY25, mainly because larger on-site projects required advance payment for materials, sub-assemblies and critical or imported components.
FY26 customers served
180
Down from 273 in FY25 despite 166% revenue growth; top-five concentration fell to 40.05%, but average engagement size and project-specific exposure increased.
Promoter loans repaid through shares
₹1.50 crore
FY26 related-party disclosures record ₹0.30 crore for Arun Kumar Sharma and ₹1.20 crore for Vandana Sharma settled by issue of shares before the IPO.
What stands out
- A more than 30-year corporate history and broad installed-customer base provide engineering experience and aftermarket opportunities.
- The company covers equipment, automation, commissioning, maintenance, retrofits, spares and consumables across the machine lifecycle.
- FY26 produced ₹131.31 crore revenue, ₹26.29 crore EBITDA and ₹14.94 crore PAT, extending the FY25 scale-up.
- The offer is entirely fresh capital and funds both production equipment and the project working-capital constraint.
Key concerns
- The rapid FY25–FY26 growth came from a fundamental shift toward manufacturing and assembly at customer sites. This short record cannot yet establish a stable run rate or margin profile.
- The top five customers generated 40.05% and the top ten 62.61% of FY26 revenue. Concentration improved from FY25 but project completion or customer loss can still create sharp volatility.
- Maharashtra and Gujarat generated 75.91% of FY26 revenue. Regional industrial capex, customer-site access and collections therefore remain concentrated despite the broader dealer network.
- At FY26, trade receivables were ₹20.98 crore, inventory ₹33.18 crore and short-term advances ₹13.35 crore. Together they create substantial collection, obsolescence and counterparty exposure.
- ₹7.55 crore, or about 36.0%, of FY26 trade receivables was older than six months. The RHP nevertheless classifies the full receivable book as considered good, while balance confirmations and reconciliations remained incomplete.
- No doubtful-debt allowance is disclosed against the ₹20.98 crore FY26 receivable book despite ₹7.55 crore being older than six months. The combination of ageing and incomplete confirmations makes collection evidence more informative than the accounting classification alone.
- The working-capital model projects debtor days rising from 58 in FY26 to 110 in FY27 and FY28, while the gap expands to ₹73.25 crore. The forecast therefore embeds materially slower collections even after the company described FY26 as a structural improvement.
- Work-in-progress was ₹26.08 crore, or 78.6% of FY26 inventory. Delays in design approval, customer-site access, testing, commissioning or final acceptance can strand a large share of the inventory base and defer milestone billing.
- Project revenue is recognised on a cost-to-cost basis using estimates of progress, total cost, expected revenue and foreseeable losses. With ₹26.08 crore of WIP, revisions to cost-to-complete or project-loss assumptions can shift revenue and margin between periods before customer acceptance and cash collection.
- Net operating cash flow was negative ₹11.66 crore in FY26 despite ₹14.94 crore PAT. Reported profit has not yet demonstrated durable cash conversion across the scaled-up project model.
- The ₹40.00 crore working-capital allocation is 2.7 times FY26 PAT. Inventory, customer acceptance, milestone billing, retention money and collections can absorb substantial capital.
- Short-term advances and other current assets rose from ₹0.95 crore to ₹14.55 crore, principally supplier prepayments for large on-site projects and critical or imported components. The working-capital case assumes this balance falls to a 30-day holding period and that more procurement moves onto supplier credit as relationships mature; neither improvement is yet demonstrated at scale.
- The RHP says shorter supplier-payment terms in FY25 and FY26 were funded principally by borrowings and equity because operating cash flow was negative in both years. Fresh proceeds may ease that constraint, but the economic test is whether customer collections replace financing as the source of vendor payments.
- Secured fund-based facilities were 90.8% utilised at FY26. The Canara cash-credit line was payable on demand at 11.35% and the Arka term loan carried an 11.50% floating rate, leaving limited low-cost headroom before the IPO-funded working-capital programme.
- Custom machinery carries specification, fabrication, site-access, integration, performance-guarantee, warranty, liquidated-damages and safety risks.
- The final RHP discusses warranty exposure but does not separately quantify a warranty provision or historical claim experience. Future provisioning, claims and post-commissioning service costs are therefore an important unavailable data point rather than a demonstrated nil exposure.
- The final RHP's machinery quotations were valid only through 31 August to 30 September 2026, and firm orders had not been placed. Delayed procurement can therefore expose the ₹8.79 crore programme to repricing and commissioning slippage.
- The top ten suppliers represented 93.50% of FY26 purchases and 93.12% in FY25, versus 43.63% in FY24. The company has no formal written long-term agreements with them, making credit terms, component availability and pricing a concentrated execution risk.
- Owned-capacity utilisation was only 50.08% in FY26, below 58.38% in FY25, even as the offer allocates ₹8.79 crore to more machinery. The company attributes its model partly to customer-site execution and outsourcing, but incremental-capacity returns need to be separated from project-mix effects.
- The FY23 statutory audit qualified unconfirmed and unreconciled receivables, payables, advances and loans and the absence of proper quantitative and reconciliation records for raw materials and semi-finished goods. Management says confirmations and inventory controls are being strengthened, but the audit impact was unascertained.
- Section 454 adjudications were pending over early transfer of private-placement subscription money, missing corporate-identification displays at two warehouses and activities not fully covered by the objects clause. The objects clause was amended in May 2026, but final orders were pending at the RHP date.
- The RHP reports eight tax matters against the company involving ₹2.86 crore and FY26 contingent liabilities of ₹5.52 crore. It also records historic provident-fund delays reaching 642 days in FY24; later FY26 delays were reduced to two days.
- The company says it had no business-interruption insurance at the RHP date. A cyber incident, extended facility outage or project-system failure could therefore create lost revenue and recovery costs beyond insured property damage.
- FY26 employee attrition was 38.81% after 60.00% in FY25. Engineering, installation and service execution can be disrupted if the business cannot retain specialised personnel during its scale-up.
- The RHP refers to capacity planning against the order book but does not quantify pending orders, executable value, ageing, cancellation rights or expected conversion. That limits independent testing of revenue visibility behind the FY27–FY28 working-capital forecast.
- Promoters held 86.96% before the issue and would retain approximately 64.00% after the maximum fresh issue, preserving family control. Vandana Sharma is both promoter and CFO, concentrating financial oversight within the family.
- The 56.10% FY26 RoNW was generated before a fresh issue equal to 156.3% of FY26 net worth. Maintaining anything close to that return after listing requires the ₹40.00 crore working-capital programme and ₹8.79 crore machinery spend to produce incremental cash earnings rather than only a larger receivable and WIP base.
- FY26 related-party disclosures record ₹1.50 crore of promoter loans repaid by issuing shares and ₹1.54 crore of advance repaid or adjusted with Techno Dyne, a firm owned by a director's relative. These transactions are disclosed, but their terms, valuation basis and post-listing recurrence should remain visible in governance review.
- Only 180 customers were served in FY26 versus 273 in FY25, even though revenue grew 166%. Lower top-five concentration is constructive, but the larger average engagement and on-site execution model can make individual project acceptance, cost-to-complete estimates and cash collection more consequential.
- BSE SME shares can have large minimum applications, limited liquidity, market-maker dependence and wide bid-ask spreads.
What to monitor after listing
- Order book, customer concentration, project milestones, cancellations, acceptance tests, liquidated damages and execution at customer sites.
- Receivable ageing, collections of the ₹7.55 crore balance older than six months, related-party receivables, advances and operating cash flow versus PAT.
- Work-in-progress by project, milestone completion, customer acceptance, write-downs and the conversion of the ₹26.08 crore FY26 WIP balance into billed revenue and cash.
- Project-by-project cost-to-complete revisions, foreseeable-loss provisions and the relationship among cost-based revenue recognition, milestone acceptance, billing and cash collection.
- Revenue and margin split among equipment, on-site fabrication, installation, maintenance, retrofits, spares and consumables.
- Deployment of ₹40.00 crore working capital and ₹8.79 crore machinery proceeds, including quotations, orders and commissioning.
- Borrowings, finance costs, warranty provisions, contingent liabilities, safety incidents and insurance coverage.
- A quantified warranty provision and claims history, including service costs after commissioning and any liquidated-damages or performance-guarantee deductions.
- Owned-capacity utilisation versus the ₹8.79 crore machinery programme, employee attrition, closure of Section 454 adjudications, statutory-payment timeliness and evidence that FY23 audit-control remediation is operating.
- Top-ten supplier concentration, written-contract coverage, credit terms, delivery performance and substitution options for critical components.
- Business-interruption and cyber-insurance limits, exclusions, claims and any enhancement after listing.
- Promoter dependence, related-party transactions, succession and BSE SME liquidity.
- Issue price, basis of allotment and listing notice after BSE's 189.2241× post-close category book; reconcile the final price with the 62,35,28,000-share cap-price curve.
- Cash-credit and term-loan utilisation, floating interest cost, repayment, release of charged properties and continuation of promoter guarantees after the issue proceeds are deployed.
- A quantified order book with customer, product, milestone, execution-window and cancellation data so the working-capital forecast can be reconciled to executable demand.
- Supplier-advance ageing, refunds, delivery against the ₹14.55 crore FY26 balance and evidence that the forecast 30-day holding period is achieved without project delays or imported-component shortages.
- Related-party loan capitalization, reimbursements and transactions with Techno Dyne, including terms, independent approvals and whether similarly material balances recur after listing.
- Customer count, average project size and project-level concentration alongside the top-five and top-ten revenue shares; a smaller customer roster should be reconciled to order conversion and cash collection.
- Final depository lock-in schedule after allotment, including the 35,10,500-share three-year promoter block and confirmation of the calculated two 38,44,750-share excess-promoter blocks.
Valuation context
Across the BSE-confirmed ₹125–₹132 band, 1,75,00,000 post-issue shares imply an equity value of approximately ₹218.75–₹231.00 crore, or about 14.6–15.5× FY26 PAT of ₹14.94 crore.
At ₹132, the offer is 4.36× FY26 pre-issue NAV of ₹30.28 per share. The final RHP's 56.10% FY26 RoNW was earned before gross fresh capital equal to 156.3% of net worth, so the post-issue return profile hinges on WIP conversion, collections and machinery utilisation.
DRHP peers Ador Welding, ESAB India and Jyoti CNC operate at much larger scale with different product ownership, distribution, exports and service mixes; their multiples are not directly transferable.
A normalized valuation should use cash earnings across several project cycles and charge an adequate return on the much larger receivable and inventory base funded by the issue.
Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO FAQs
What is the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO price band?
The stated price band is ₹125–₹132. Offer terms should be checked against the final prospectus and exchange notices.
When does the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO open and close?
The IPO is scheduled to open on 14 August 2026 and close on 18 August 2026. The stated listing date is Final BSE SME notice pending.
What is the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO issue size?
The stated total issue size is ₹60.98 Cr, comprising ₹60.98 Cr of fresh issue and ₹0 Cr of offer for sale.
What is the minimum lot for the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO?
The stated minimum lot is 2000 shares.
What do the latest Technocrats Plasma Systems financials show?
For FY26, the offer documents report revenue of ₹131.31 Cr, EBITDA of ₹26.29 Cr and PAT of ₹14.94 Cr. Read these figures with the cash-flow, leverage and working-capital analysis on this page.
What is a key risk in the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO analysis?
The rapid FY25–FY26 growth came from a fundamental shift toward manufacturing and assembly at customer sites. This short record cannot yet establish a stable run rate or margin profile.
How is the Technocrats Plasma Systems IPO valued?
Across the BSE-confirmed ₹125–₹132 band, 1,75,00,000 post-issue shares imply an equity value of approximately ₹218.75–₹231.00 crore, or about 14.6–15.5× FY26 PAT of ₹14.94 crore.