Hy-Tech Engineers Limited IPO Analysis, 117-Checkpoint Due Diligence & Valuation Dossier

Issue Size ₹315.00 Cr

Price Band ₹212 - ₹224

Lot Size / Min Inv. 65 shares

Estimated Market Cap ₹502.72 Cr

Anchor Allocation ₹40.72 Cr (30.0% of Issue)

Offering Dates 18 Aug 2026 - 20 Aug 2026

FAST-ORIENTATION TRIAGE

At a Glance: Fast-Orientation Triage

Mainboard or SME issue?

OK

Mainboard issue (listing on BSE and NSE under SEBI ICDR Regulation 6(1)).

100% Book Built Offer, Face Value ₹5 (Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58)

Can you explain what the company does in one plain sentence?

OK

Hy-Tech Engineers manufactures high-precision hydraulic fittings and forged components across 11,000+ SKUs for mobile equipment, industrial machinery, defence, and railways.

Product range includes DIN-metric, JIC flared, ORFS, and conversion fittings (Our Business, p. 172-182)

Total issue size and post-issue market cap?

OK

Total Issue Size: ₹135.73 cr (~2.56 cr shares @ ₹53); Implied Post-Issue Market Cap: ₹502.72 cr (9.49 cr shares @ ₹53).

Fresh issue ₹60.00 cr (1.13 cr shares) + OFS ₹75.73 cr (1.43 cr shares) at Cap/Anchor price ₹53 (Cover Page, p. 1; Anchor Report)

Fresh issue vs OFS - what's the split?

OK

Fresh Issue: ₹60.00 cr (44.2% of total issue); Offer for Sale (OFS): ₹75.73 cr (55.8% of total issue).

Fresh ₹60.00 cr / Total ₹135.73 cr (The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97)

Who is selling in the OFS - promoter, PE, or both?

OK

Promoter Selling Shareholders only: Hemant Tukaram Mondkar (up to 8,980,961 shares) and Surekha Hemant Mondkar jointly with Hemant Mondkar (up to 5,308,489 shares).

No PE/VC selling; founders cashing out ₹75.73 cr @ ₹53 (WACA ₹0.22 and ₹0.12) (The Offer, p. 58; Capital Structure, p. 74)

Is the company profitable, or loss-making?

OK

Profitable and consistently growing (FY26 Restated PAT ₹22.59 cr, +15.2% YoY; FY25 PAT ₹19.62 cr; FY24 PAT ₹11.60 cr).

PAT margin: 11.68% (FY26), 11.77% (FY25), 8.21% (FY24) (Restated Financial Statements, p. 226)

Any headline red flag in the first 10 risk factors?

OK

Top 10 customer concentration at 45.32% (FY26), no long-term off-take agreements (purchase orders), and 100% of capex machinery orders unplaced.

No going-concern language, no criminal cases against company/promoters (Risk Factors #1, #4, #6, #10, p. 17-25)

Auditor qualification or 'emphasis of matter'?

OK

Unmodified audit opinion; only a standard non-adjusting remark regarding audit trail (edit log) feature at Nashik unit till June 2024 and database layer ERP limitation.

No financial qualifications, adverse remarks, or disclaimer of opinion (Auditor's Report & Annexure VII, p. 224, 275)

Any criminal case / SEBI-RBI action against promoters?

FLAG

No criminal cases or SEBI/RBI actions against Promoters or Company; 1 historical case involving Director Sunil Sathe (dismissed in 2018, revision pending); 2 minor labour law notices against Promoter.

No material adverse regulatory actions (Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-316)

IPO P/E vs the peers listed in 'Basis for Offer Price'?

OK

Hy-Tech IPO post-issue P/E of 22.25x (pre-issue 19.63x) vs listed peer average of 135.56x (Aeroflex 107.04x, Dynamatic 230.32x, Yuken 69.32x).

Priced at a significant discount to peers despite comparable/higher ROE (20.24%) and EBITDA margin (22.01%) (Basis for Offer Price, p. 113-116)

Is the use of fresh-issue money clearly growth-oriented?

OK

Balanced: 49.94% (₹29.97 cr) for capex/machinery expansion at Kavathe, Shirwal & Pithampur-I; 26.67% (₹16.00 cr) for debt repayment; rest for GCP.

Clear growth and deleveraging orientation; capex expands capacity by 41-83% across 3 units (Objects of the Offer, p. 97-106)

Is this within your circle of competence to judge?

OK

Yes. Standard precision engineering & auto-ancillary business model driven by capacity utilisation, OEM vendor stickiness, raw material spread over steel, and working capital cycles.

Clear operating economics and standard industrial ratios (Our Business, p. 172; Industry Overview, p. 126)

LAYER 1 • STORY & POSITIONING

What The Company Does: Operational & Strategic Architecture

Hy-Tech Engineers manufactures high-pressure hydraulic fittings (DIN-metric, JIC flared, ORFS, and conversion fittings) and forged metal components across 11,000+ SKUs. It operates 6 manufacturing facilities across Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, supplying critical fluid-transmission connections to construction equipment, agriculture machinery, automotive, railways, and defence OEMs.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
1	What does the company do, in one plain sentence?	Hy-Tech Engineers manufactures high-precision hydraulic fittings (DIN-metric, JIC flared, ORFS, and conversion fittings) and forged metal parts across 11,000+ SKUs for construction equipment, agriculture machinery, automotive, railways, and defence OEMs.	OK	Cover Page, p. 1; Our Business, p. 172-182
Where in DRHP: Cover, 'Our Business', Industry Overview Why It Matters: If you can't say it simply, neither can the company - and that's telling. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unexplainable model = step back Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; Our Business, p. 172-182
2	Operating history & year of incorporation	Established in 1978 as a private company (48+ years operating history), converted to a public limited company on March 23, 2022. Proven long-term operating track record in precision engineering.	OK	History and Corporate Matters, p. 195; Annexure V, p. 230
Where in DRHP: 'History and Corporate Matters' Why It Matters: A long, consistent track record beats a recently assembled roll-up. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: <3 yrs real operating history = caution Exact Citation: History and Corporate Matters, p. 195; Annexure V, p. 230
3	Industry / sub-sector & position in the value chain	Precision engineered hydraulic fittings and components industry. Operates as a Tier-1/Tier-2 manufacturer with captive backward integration in forging at Nashik supplying fittings plants and external OEMs/distributors.	OK	Industry Overview, p. 126; Our Business, p. 172-175
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Defines the correct peer set and the normal margin/return profile. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p. 126; Our Business, p. 172-175
4	Stated competitive strengths - real or generic?	Tangible competitive strengths: extensive library of 11,000+ SKUs, backward integration with 3,120 MTPA captive forging facility at Nashik, modular cell-based manufacturing across 6 units, high-barrier IRIS railway certification and DRDO defence approvals, and 95.1% repeat customer revenue.	OK	Our Business - Competitive Strengths, p. 172-180
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strengths' Why It Matters: 'Experienced promoters, quality focus' is boilerplate; specifics are real moats. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Only generic strengths = weak moat Exact Citation: Our Business - Competitive Strengths, p. 172-180
5	Stated growth strategy - concrete or aspirational?	Concrete 4-pillar growth strategy: (i) expanding manufacturing capacity by 41-83% across Shirwal, Kavathe, and Pithampur-I units via ₹29.97 cr IPO capex; (ii) product diversification into hydraulic valves; (iii) scaling penetration in railways (IRIS) and defence (DRDO); (iv) expanding export distribution network across North America and Europe.	OK	Our Business - Business Strategies, p. 179-181; Objects of the Offer, p. 97-103
Where in DRHP: 'Our Strategies' Why It Matters: Fundable, specific plans beat vague ambition. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague strategy = discount the story Exact Citation: Our Business - Business Strategies, p. 179-181; Objects of the Offer, p. 97-103
6	Industry tailwinds vs headwinds	Tailwinds: Global hydraulic fittings market growing at 8-10% CAGR (USD 398.1M in CY25 to USD 725.2M by CY31); domestic infrastructure, Make in India, defence indigenization, and railways modernization (Vande Bharat). Headwinds: Steel input cost volatility, trade policy/tariff shifts in export markets, and high industry fragmentation (>90% unorganized).	OK	Industry Overview (CARE Report), p. 126-171; MD&A, p. 278-280
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview', MD&A Why It Matters: Structural growth vs a flat/declining or cyclical-peak market. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Declining/flat industry = headwind Exact Citation: Industry Overview (CARE Report), p. 126-171; MD&A, p. 278-280
7	Who commissioned the industry report?	Industry research report titled 'Industry Research Report on Hydraulic Fittings Industry' was commissioned and paid for by Hy-Tech Engineers Limited from CARE Analytics and Advisory Private Limited (August 2026).	OK	Certain Conventions, p. 15; Industry Overview, p. 126; Risk Factor #38, p. 41
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' footnotes Why It Matters: Company-paid reports (e.g. CRISIL/F&S) skew optimistic - discount accordingly. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Always company-commissioned Exact Citation: Certain Conventions, p. 15; Industry Overview, p. 126; Risk Factor #38, p. 41
8	Is the TAM / market-size claim credible?	Credible: Global hydraulic fittings market estimated at USD 398.1M (~₹3,300 cr) in CY25 reaching USD 725.2M by CY31 (CAGR 10.5%); US market at 8.2% CAGR, Europe at 8.6% CAGR. Company's FY26 revenue of ₹189.4 cr represents ~5-6% of global and ~10-12% of organized domestic market.	OK	Industry Overview, p. 126-140; Our Business, p. 178
Where in DRHP: 'Industry Overview' Why It Matters: Sanity-check the addressable market against the company's actual revenue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Implausibly large TAM = puffery Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p. 126-140; Our Business, p. 178
9	Market share and its trend	Operates in a highly fragmented industry where >90% of players are unorganized. Within the organized domestic space, Hy-Tech is an established player with revenue expanding from ₹137.71 cr (FY24) to ₹189.40 cr (FY26) (17.3% CAGR), reflecting steady market share gains in high-precision and export segments.	OK	Industry Overview, p. 150-160; Our Business, p. 172-176
Where in DRHP: Industry / Business Why It Matters: Share gains signal real competitiveness; losses signal pressure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Losing share = flag Exact Citation: Industry Overview, p. 150-160; Our Business, p. 172-176
10	Key competitors named	Listed peers named in DRHP: Aeroflex Industries Limited, Dynamatic Technologies Limited, Yuken India Limited. Global/domestic competitors include Parker Hannifin, Eaton, and unorganized domestic precision machine shops.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 113; Our Business - Competition, p. 187
Where in DRHP: 'Competition', Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: Tells you the genuine peer set for the valuation comparison later. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 113; Our Business - Competition, p. 187

LAYER 2 • ISSUE STRUCTURE & OBJECTS

The IPO Itself: Capital Allocation & Objects Rupee Breakdown

The total issue size is ₹135.73 cr at ₹53 per share, split into a ₹60.00 cr Fresh Issue (44.2%) and a ₹75.73 cr OFS (55.8%) by the founders Hemant and Surekha Mondkar. Fresh proceeds are earmarked for growth capex (₹29.97 cr to expand capacity by 41-83% at Kavathe, Shirwal, and Pithampur-I) and debt deleveraging (₹16.00 cr), leaving the company nearly debt-free post-issue.

Offering Structure & Tranche Breakup

Offering Parameter / Tranche	Mandate & Allocation	Value & Scale	Strategic Context & Terms
Fresh Issue (Primary Capital)	Growth capital directly reaching balance sheet	₹315.00 Cr	Primary equity expansion funding capex, working capital & debt
Offer for Sale (OFS Liquidations)	Secondary liquidity for existing promoters & early funds	OFS Dilution Tranche	Proceeds go entirely to selling shareholders; zero reaches company
Gross Total Issue Size	Aggregate offering scale at upper price band	₹315.00 Cr	Total book-building size
Anchor Investor Allocation	Reserved institutional QIB tranche	₹40.72 Cr (30.0% of Issue)	Anchor lock-in: 50% for 30 days, 50% for 90 days post-listing
Pre-IPO WACA Benchmark	Weighted average cost of acquisition for promoters	Disclosed in Basis for Issue Price	Benchmark for pricing fairness and insider multiple markup

Capital Allocation & Objects of the Issue

Object of Offer / Purpose	Allocated Amount	% Share	Execution Timeline
Machinery Capex / Capacity Expansion (Shirwal, Kavathe, Pithampur-I)	₹29.97 Cr	49.9%	FY27-FY28 Scheduled
Debt Deleveraging (Prepayment of TJSB Bank Term Loans)	₹16.00 Cr	26.7%	FY27 Scheduled
General Corporate Purposes (GCP) & Issue Expenses	₹14.03 Cr	23.4%	Capped at ≤25% (SEBI ICDR)
Total Fresh Growth Capital	₹60.00 Cr	100.0%	Balance Sheet Inflow

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
11	Mainboard or SME issue?	Mainboard issue (listing on BSE and NSE pursuant to SEBI ICDR Regulation 6(1)).	OK	Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Other Regulatory Disclosures, p. 322
Where in DRHP: Cover page Why It Matters: SME = thinner disclosure, lower liquidity, higher risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: SME = extra caution Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Other Regulatory Disclosures, p. 322
12	Total issue size (Rs cr)	Total Issue Size: ₹135.73 cr (comprising ₹60.00 cr Fresh Issue + ₹75.73 cr OFS of 14,289,450 shares @ ₹53 cap/anchor price).	OK	Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Anchor Report dated Aug 21, 2026
Where in DRHP: Cover page / 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Basic sizing of the raise. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Anchor Report dated Aug 21, 2026
13	Fresh issue amount (Rs cr)	Fresh Issue amount: ₹60.00 cr (aggregating up to ₹600.00 million, or ~11,320,754 equity shares @ ₹53).	OK	The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: Only the fresh issue brings new money into the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
14	OFS amount (Rs cr)	Offer for Sale (OFS) amount: ₹75.73 cr (14,289,450 equity shares @ ₹53).	Watch	Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: OFS proceeds go to selling shareholders, not the business. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
15	Fresh : OFS ratio	Fresh : OFS ratio = 44.2% Fresh (₹60.00 cr) : 55.8% OFS (₹75.73 cr). OFS is slightly larger than Fresh, but within normal ranges and well below the 70% red-flag threshold.	Watch	The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' Why It Matters: A heavy OFS tilt means the IPO is mostly an exit. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: OFS >70% + tiny fresh = flag Exact Citation: The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
16	Who is selling in the OFS?	Promoter Selling Shareholders only: Hemant Tukaram Mondkar (up to 8,980,961 shares / ₹47.60 cr) and Surekha Hemant Mondkar jointly with Hemant Mondkar (up to 5,308,489 shares / ₹28.13 cr). No institutional PE/VC investors selling.	Watch	Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
Where in DRHP: 'The Offer' / Selling Shareholders Why It Matters: Promoter exit and PE exit carry very different signals. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large promoter sell-down = flag Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; The Offer, p. 58; Objects of the Offer, p. 97
17	How much does the COMPANY actually receive?	Company receives gross fresh proceeds of ₹60.00 cr less proportionate issue expenses (~₹6-8 cr estimated) = Net Proceeds of ~₹52-54 cr.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98, 107
Where in DRHP: Fresh issue minus issue expenses Why It Matters: This is the real fuel for growth - often far less than the headline. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98, 107
18	Objects: capex - amount & specificity	₹29.97 cr (₹299.66 million, 49.94% of gross fresh issue) earmarked for machinery procurement (CNC lathes, VMCs, rotary transfer machines, thread rolling, solar plant) at Kavathe, Shirwal, and Pithampur-I units. 100% backed by vendor quotations, though orders are yet to be placed.	Watch	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-103; Risk Factor #10, p. 25
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Specific, costed capex is genuine growth spending. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Vague/uncosted capex = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-103; Risk Factor #10, p. 25
19	Objects: debt repayment amount	₹16.00 cr (₹160.00 million, 26.67% of gross fresh issue) earmarked for prepayment/repayment of term loans availed from TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd, significantly reducing finance costs and debt burden.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97, 105-106
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Deleveraging is healthy but it is balance-sheet repair, not growth. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High % to debt = repair, not growth Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97, 105-106
20	Objects: working capital amount	₹0.00 cr (Nil specific allocation for working capital in the Objects table; ongoing working capital requirements to be funded via internal accruals and general corporate purposes).	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Normal for a growing WC-intensive business; large amounts can signal a stretched cycle. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98
21	Objects: acquisition - named target or 'future M&A'?	Nil amount allocated from Net Proceeds for acquisitions or M&A. (Company mentions long-term strategic evaluation of hydraulic valves in MD&A, but no IPO funds allocated).	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98; Our Business, p. 180
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: A named, costed target beats a blank cheque for 'inorganic growth'. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unspecified M&A = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98; Our Business, p. 180
22	General Corporate Purposes (GCP) as % of fresh issue	General Corporate Purposes (GCP) is capped at 25.0% of Gross Proceeds of Fresh Issue (maximum ₹15.00 cr / ₹150.00M, less issue expenses = ~₹14.03 cr). Fully compliant with SEBI 25% ceiling.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: SEBI caps GCP (and unidentified objects). High GCP = undefined use of your money. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Maxed-out / high GCP = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-98
23	Issue expenses as % of the issue	Total Offer expenses estimated at ~₹8-10 cr (~6-7% of total issue size of ₹135.73 cr), shared proportionately between Company and Selling Shareholders based on shares offered.	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 107-109
Where in DRHP: 'Objects of the Offer' Why It Matters: Fees eat into the proceeds that reach the company. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Unusually high = flag Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 107-109
24	Overall read: growth / debt-repair / exit / mixed?	Mixed read: Balanced growth capex (₹29.97 cr, 50.0% of fresh) and debt deleveraging (₹16.00 cr, 26.7% of fresh), combined with promoter partial liquidity monetization (₹75.73 cr OFS).	OK	Objects of the Offer, p. 97-106; The Offer, p. 58
Where in DRHP: Synthesise the objects Why It Matters: The single most important interpretation of the whole issue. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Pure exit or repair = low enthusiasm Exact Citation: Objects of the Offer, p. 97-106; The Offer, p. 58
25	Pre-IPO placement done - at what price vs the IPO band?	No pre-IPO placement was undertaken. Last secondary transfer occurred on July 24, 2026 at ₹18.00 per share (FV ₹5).	OK	Capital Structure, p. 74; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: A recent placement far below the IPO price signals aggressive pricing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big gap below IPO price = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 74; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118
26	WACA - weighted avg cost of acquisition of promoter/investor shares vs IPO price	Promoter WACA: Hemant Mondkar ₹0.22/sh, Surekha Mondkar ₹0.12/sh, Ashwin Mondkar ₹9.43/sh. Certified secondary transaction WACA over last 3 years: ₹15.12/sh. IPO Offer Price of ₹53 is 3.51x secondary WACA.	Watch	Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 93-94; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: SEBI-mandated. Shows the markup at which insiders are selling to you. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: IPO price >> WACA = priced for insiders Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 93-94; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118

LAYER 3 • BUSINESS QUALITY

Business Quality: Concentration, Retention & Durability

Business durability is anchored by customer stickiness, recurring volume growth, and disciplined operational execution.

Revenue Breakdown & Product Segment Mix

Product / Operating Segment	% Share	Revenue Value
Construction Machinery Hydraulic Fittings	22.9%	₹43.46 Cr
Agriculture Machinery & Tractors	22.8%	₹43.24 Cr
Automotive & Commercial Vehicles	9.1%	₹17.13 Cr
Hydraulic Power Systems & Injection Moulding	9.1%	₹17.19 Cr
Railways (IRIS Certified) & Defence (DRDO)	1.5%	₹2.75 Cr
Other Industrial Applications & Distributors	34.4%	₹65.09 Cr

Customer & Geographic Concentration Matrix

Counterparty / Customer Tier	Revenue Share (%)	Rupee Amount	Strategic Exposure Note
Domestic India Sales (Western & Central OEMs)	70.6%	₹133.78 Cr	Core domestic OEM network across MH & MP
International Export Sales (11 Countries)	29.4%	₹55.62 Cr	Global exports led by USA (21.4%) & Belgium (6.1%)
Top 1 Key Client (Tompkins Industries Inc)	9.3%	₹17.69 Cr	Largest single customer (<25% risk threshold)
Top 5 Key Clients / Accounts	30.3%	₹57.31 Cr	Major Tier-1 industrial buyers (<50% benchmark)
Top 10 Key Clients / Accounts	45.3%	₹85.84 Cr	Institutional tier (95.1% repeat revenue)

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

27

Revenue breakdown by segment / product

End-use segment breakdown (FY26): Construction Machinery ₹43.46 cr (22.9%), Farming ₹43.24 cr (22.8%), Automotive ₹17.13 cr (9.1%), Hydraulic Systems ₹9.65 cr (5.1%), Injection Moulding ₹7.54 cr (4.0%), Railways & Defence ₹2.75 cr (1.5%), Others/Distributors ₹65.09 cr (34.4%). Total ₹189.40 cr. Product lines: DIN, JIC, ORFS, and conversion fittings across 11,000+ SKUs.

OK

Our Business, p. 176, 181-182; Restated Financials Note 30, p. 258

28

Top customer as % of revenue

Top 1 customer (Tompkins Industries Inc): FY26: 9.34% (₹17.69 cr), FY25: 7.82% (₹12.62 cr), FY24: 8.91% (₹12.27 cr). Comfortably below the 25-30% red-flag threshold.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
9	7	8

OK

Risk Factor #1, p. 17; Our Business, p. 185

29

Top 5 customers as % of revenue

Top 5 customers: FY26: 30.26% (₹57.31 cr), FY25: 26.00% (₹41.96 cr), FY24: 32.43% (₹44.65 cr). Well below the 50% red-flag benchmark.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
30	26	32

OK

Risk Factor #1, p. 17-18; Our Business, p. 185

30

Are customer relationships recurring/contracted or order-by-order?

Customer relationships are conducted purely on an order-by-order basis (short-cycle purchase orders with ~60-day delivery); no long-term take-or-pay or minimum volume contracts. Standard for precision component manufacturing.

Watch

Risk Factor #1 & #4, p. 17, 21; Our Business, p. 185

31

Recurring / repeat revenue %

High repeat customer revenue: FY26: 95.10% (₹180.08 cr from 114 repeat clients), FY25: 95.20% (₹153.64 cr from 128 clients), FY24: 91.20% (₹125.60 cr from 102 clients). Demonstrates strong customer stickiness.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
95	95	91

OK

Our Business, p. 177

32

Supplier concentration (top / top-5)

Top 1 Supplier: FY26: 21.62% (₹14.63 cr), FY25: 13.39% (₹8.23 cr), FY24: 20.48% (₹9.72 cr). Top 5 Suppliers: FY26: 47.33% (₹32.02 cr), FY25: 38.49% (₹23.67 cr), FY24: 48.87% (₹23.20 cr). Top 10 suppliers account for 65.61% in FY26.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24	FY26	FY25	FY24	FY26
21	13	20	47	38	48	.

Watch

Risk Factor #6, p. 22-23; Our Business, p. 185-186

33

Single-source or single raw-material dependency?

Primary raw materials are carbon steel, alloy steel, and stainless steel. No single-vendor lock-in; sourced from multiple domestic steel stockists/mills (Dhand Steel, Goyal Bright, ESP Engineered, Bharti Hydro). Imported raw materials represent <1.0% of purchases.

OK

Risk Factor #6 & #15, p. 22-23, 27; Our Business, p. 185-186

34

Manufacturing footprint - single-plant dependency?

Operates 6 manufacturing facilities across Maharashtra (Thane, Nashik, Shirwal, Kavathe) and Madhya Pradesh (Pithampur-I, Pithampur-II) totaling 32,887 sq. mtrs built-up area. Nashik handles captive forging; machining and fittings spread across 5 units. No single critical plant bottleneck.

OK

Our Business - Manufacturing Facilities, p. 182-183

35

Current capacity utilisation

FY26 Capacity Utilisation: Shirwal 70.83% (102L pcs), Kavathe 60.42% (116L pcs), Pithampur-I 84.62% (44L pcs), Pithampur-II 68.33% (41L pcs), Thane 68.57% (24L pcs); Nashik Forging 67.53% (2,107 MT). Overall aggregate utilization is balanced at ~68-70%, leaving headroom for initial growth while justifying capex.

OK

Our Business - Installed Capacity and Capacity Utilization, p. 184

36

Geographic concentration of revenue

Revenue by Geography (FY26): Domestic 70.63% (₹133.78 cr, primarily Western & Central India); Exports 29.37% (₹55.62 cr across 11 countries, led by USA ₹40.58 cr / 21.42% and Belgium ₹11.63 cr / 6.14%). Balanced domestic and overseas footprint.

OK

Our Business, p. 176, 178; Risk Factor #11, p. 26

37

Asset-heavy or asset-light?

Moderately capital-intensive / asset-heavy manufacturing: Net Property, Plant & Equipment + CWIP = ₹65.18 cr as of FY26; Net fixed asset turnover = Revenue ₹189.40 cr / Net PPE ₹59.43 cr = 3.19x.

OK

Annexure I (Assets), p. 224; Note 4, p. 248; MD&A, p. 278

38

Working-capital intensity

High working capital intensity: Net Working Capital (Current Assets - Current Liabilities) = ₹64.85 cr as of FY26 (34.2% of FY26 revenue), driven by trade receivables (₹49.90 cr / 92 debtor days) and inventory (₹28.37 cr / 150 inventory days).

Watch

Annexure I, p. 224; Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; MD&A, p. 298

39

Distribution model (direct / dealer / online)

Hybrid dual-channel model: Direct sales to OEMs (170 direct customers in FY26, ~65.6% of revenue) + 7 active distributors/distribution partners (~34.4% of revenue, average ₹3.65 cr revenue per distributor). North American exports supported by Hy-Tech USA Inc.

OK

Our Business, p. 176, 180; Basis for Offer Price, p. 111

40

Order book / backlog (if relevant)

Hydraulic fittings are sold primarily on short-cycle purchase orders (60-day delivery schedules) rather than multi-year contract backlogs. No formal long-term order book disclosed in RHP.

OK

Risk Factor #1 & #4, p. 17, 21; MD&A, p. 285

41

Cyclicality of the business

Moderate cyclicality tied to end-user Capex and production cycles in construction machinery (22.9%), agriculture (22.8%), and automotive (9.1%). Diversification across 11,000 SKUs, exports (29.4%), and entry into rail/defence provides counter-cyclical resilience.

OK

Our Business, p. 176, 179-180; MD&A, p. 279

42

Entry barriers / moat - real or weak?

Moderate moat: High customer switching costs due to OEM vendor qualification, IATF 16949 / IRIS railway certifications, DRDO defence approvals, 11,000+ SKU tooling library, and backward integrated captive forging. Low barriers only in generic low-end unorganized machine shop segment.

OK

Our Business - Strengths, p. 172-180; Competition, p. 187

43

Key licences / regulatory approvals the business depends on

Holds essential operating consents (State Pollution Control Board consents under Air & Water Acts, Factory Licenses, MIDC leases, IATF 16949, ISO 9001/14001/45001, IRIS ISO/TS 22163). All material licenses active; routine renewals underway.

OK

Government and Other Approvals, p. 318-321; Our Business, p. 187

44

Technology / obsolescence risk

Low obsolescence risk: Fluid power and hydraulic transmission fittings are foundational mechanical components in heavy equipment, construction, and tractors. Transition to electro-hydraulic systems still requires high-pressure fittings and conversion adapters.

OK

Industry Overview, p. 126-135; Risk Factor #37, p. 41

LAYER 4 • FINANCIAL QUALITY

Are The Numbers Real? Multi-Year Forensic Quality Audit

The financials are backed by genuine cash flows: 3-year cumulative CFO stands at ₹66.02 cr against cumulative PAT of ₹53.81 cr (CFO/PAT ratio of 1.23x). Free cash flow surged to +₹18.78 cr in FY26. Operating margins have remained stable at ~22.0% EBITDA margin across FY25 and FY26, and total debt decreased from ₹43.53 cr in FY25 to ₹29.76 cr in FY26.

Revenue from Operations

+17.3%

₹189.40 Cr

₹137.71 Cr

FY24

₹161.38 Cr

FY25

₹189.40 Cr

FY26

EBITDA & Operating Profit

+36.0%

₹41.69 Cr (22.0%)

₹22.55 Cr (16.4%)

FY24

₹35.79 Cr (22.2%)

FY25

₹41.69 Cr (22.0%)

FY26

Profit After Tax (PAT)

+39.6%

₹22.59 Cr (11.7%)

₹11.60 Cr (8.2%)

FY24

₹19.62 Cr (11.8%)

FY25

₹22.59 Cr (11.7%)

FY26

Cash Flow from Operations (CFO)

1.23x CFO/PAT

₹30.33 Cr

₹18.68 Cr

FY24

₹17.02 Cr

FY25

₹30.33 Cr

FY26

3-Year Audited Financial Performance Summary

Financial Parameter / Metric	FY24	FY25	FY26	3-Yr CAGR
Revenue from Operations	₹137.71 Cr	₹161.38 Cr	₹189.40 Cr	+17.3%
EBITDA (Operating Profit)	₹22.55 Cr (16.4%)	₹35.79 Cr (22.2%)	₹41.69 Cr (22.0%)	+36.0%
Profit After Tax (PAT)	₹11.60 Cr (8.2%)	₹19.62 Cr (11.8%)	₹22.59 Cr (11.7%)	+39.6%
Operating Cash Flow (CFO)	₹18.68 Cr	₹17.02 Cr	₹30.33 Cr	1.23x CFO/PAT
ROCE (Return on Capital)	15.24%	20.46%	24.40%	+916 bps
Debt-to-Equity (D/E)	0.50x	0.43x	0.24x	0.10x Post-IPO

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

45

Revenue (3 yrs) and CAGR

Revenue from Operations: FY24 ₹137.71 cr → FY25 ₹161.38 cr → FY26 ₹189.40 cr; 2-year CAGR of 17.28%. (Total Income: FY24 ₹141.17 cr → FY25 ₹166.71 cr → FY26 ₹193.44 cr, CAGR 17.06%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY24	FY25	FY26
₹137	₹161	₹189	₹141	₹166	₹193

OK

Restated Financial Statements, Annexure II, p. 226; Basis for Offer Price, p. 116

46

Is growth organic or acquisition-driven?

100% organic growth driven by higher production volumes across Shirwal and Kavathe units, addition of new SKUs (880 new SKUs in FY26), new OEM onboarding, and export growth. No acquisitions during the 3-year period.

OK

MD&A, p. 278-285; Our Business, p. 172

47

Gross margin trend (3 yrs)

Gross Margin (Revenue minus Raw Materials & Inventory Change): FY24: 63.90% (₹88.00 cr) → FY25: 65.42% (₹105.58 cr) → FY26: 65.16% (₹123.42 cr). Stable and resilient gross margin profile across 3 years.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
63	65	65

OK

Annexure II (P&L), p. 226; MD&A, p. 299

48

EBITDA and EBITDA-margin trend

EBITDA: FY24 ₹22.55 cr (16.38% margin) → FY25 ₹35.79 cr (22.18% margin) → FY26 ₹41.69 cr (22.01% margin). Strong EBITDA margin expansion from FY24 to FY25-26 (+563 bps) driven by operating leverage and captive forging.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY24
₹22	₹35	₹41	to FY25-26 (+563 bps) driven by operating leverage and captive forging

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Other Financial Information, p. 276

49

Sudden margin spike right before the IPO?

EBITDA margin jumped from 16.38% in FY24 to 22.18% in FY25, then held steady at 22.01% in FY26. PAT margin similarly moved from 8.21% (FY24) to 11.77% (FY25) and 11.68% (FY26). Margin stepped up in FY25 and was sustained in FY26 rather than a one-off FY26 spike.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY24	FY25	FY26	FY25
to 22	, then held steady at 22	. PAT margin similarly moved from 8	) to 11	) and 11	)	and was sustained in FY26 rather than a one-off FY26 spike

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 226

50

PAT and PAT-margin trend

Restated PAT: FY24 ₹11.60 cr (8.21% PAT margin on total income) → FY25 ₹19.62 cr (11.77% margin) → FY26 ₹22.59 cr (11.68% margin). PAT CAGR of 39.58% over FY24-FY26.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY24
₹11	₹19	₹22	FY26

OK

Restated Financials, Annexure II, p. 226; Basis for Offer Price, p. 116

51

Other income as % of PAT

Other Income / PAT: FY24: 29.88% (₹3.47 cr / ₹11.60 cr) → FY25: 27.14% (₹5.33 cr / ₹19.62 cr, included ₹2.69 cr PPE gain) → FY26: 17.84% (₹4.03 cr / ₹22.59 cr, interest income ₹1.04 cr, scrap sales ₹5.52 cr classified in op rev, forex gains). Trend is declining.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
29	27	17

Watch

Restated Financials Note 31, p. 259; Annexure II, p. 226

52

CFO (operating cash flow) trend

Cash Flow from Operations (CFO): FY24 ₹18.68 cr (186.77M) → FY25 ₹17.02 cr (170.16M) → FY26 ₹30.33 cr (303.25M). Robust positive CFO across all three years.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹18	₹17	₹30

OK

Restated Financial Statements, Annexure IV, p. 228

53

CFO / PAT (cash conversion), multi-year

CFO / PAT: FY24: 1.61x (₹18.68 cr / ₹11.60 cr) → FY25: 0.87x (₹17.02 cr / ₹19.62 cr) → FY26: 1.34x (₹30.33 cr / ₹22.59 cr). 3-year cumulative CFO / PAT = ₹66.02 cr / ₹53.81 cr = 1.23x. Exceeds benchmark (>0.70x).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
1	0	1

OK

Annexure II & IV, p. 226, 228

54

Was CFO negative in any year?

No. CFO was positive in every fiscal year: FY24 ₹18.68 cr, FY25 ₹17.02 cr, FY26 ₹30.33 cr.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹18	₹17	₹30

OK

Restated Cash Flow Statement, Annexure IV, p. 228

55

Free cash flow (CFO minus capex)

FCF (CFO minus Payments for PPE & Intangibles): FY24: -₹9.96 cr (18.68 - 28.64) → FY25: +₹1.61 cr (17.02 - 15.41) → FY26: +₹18.78 cr (30.33 - 11.55). 3-year cumulative FCF = +₹10.43 cr. Turned strongly positive in FY26.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY26
-₹9	+₹1	+₹18	.

OK

Restated Cash Flow Statement, Annexure IV, p. 228

56

Total debt and net debt

Total Borrowings: FY24 ₹40.84 cr → FY25 ₹43.53 cr → FY26 ₹29.76 cr. Cash & Bank Balances (FY26): ₹14.96 cr. Net Debt (FY26): ₹14.80 cr (down sharply from ₹42.22 cr in FY25 and ₹35.34 cr in FY24).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY25	FY24
₹40	₹43	₹29	and ₹35	)

OK

Restated Statement of Assets & Liabilities, p. 224-225; Notes 21 & 24, p. 254, 256

57

Debt / Equity

Debt-to-Equity Ratio: FY24: 0.50x (49.67%) → FY25: 0.43x (42.99%) → FY26: 0.24x (24.39%). Low and declining leverage; comfortably below 1.5-2.0x flag trigger.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
0	0	0

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Financial Indebtedness, p. 311

58

Interest coverage (EBIT / interest)

Interest Coverage Ratio: FY24: 5.29x (or EBIT 18.68 cr / Int 2.87 cr = 6.50x) → FY25: 5.34x (EBIT 31.01 cr / Int 4.81 cr = 6.44x) → FY26: 6.93x (EBIT 35.03 cr / Int 4.47 cr = 7.84x). Strong debt service capacity (>3x benchmark).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
5	5	6

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Annexure II, p. 226

59

ROE and trend

Return on Equity (RoNW): FY24: 15.11% → FY25: 21.39% → FY26: 20.24%. Consistent high return on net worth (>20%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
15	21	20

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 113, 116; Other Financial Information, p. 276

60

ROCE and trend

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE): FY24: 15.24% → FY25: 20.46% → FY26: 24.40%. Consistently expanding ROCE (+916 bps over 2 years).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
15	20	24

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116

61

ROCE vs cost of capital

FY26 ROCE of 24.40% significantly exceeds the company's estimated cost of capital (~10-12%), demonstrating strong economic value creation (+1,240 bps spread).

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 224-226

62

Debtor (receivable) days and trend

Trade Receivables Turnover: FY24: 3.47x (105 days) → FY25: 3.91x (93 days) → FY26: 3.96x (92 days). Year-end debtor days = 49.90 / 189.40 * 365 = 96.2 days (improved from 103.4 days in FY25).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY25
3	3	3	)

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Annexure I, p. 224

63

Inventory days and trend

Inventory Turnover Ratio: FY24: 2.28x (160 days) → FY25: 2.48x (147 days) → FY26: 2.44x (150 days). Year-end inventory days vs raw materials = 28.37 / 67.32 * 365 = 153.8 days. Stable inventory holding needed for 11,000 SKU delivery readiness.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
2	2	2

Watch

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Annexure I, p. 224

64

Payable days and trend

Trade Payables Turnover Ratio: FY24: 4.83x (76 days) → FY25: 6.30x (58 days) → FY26: 7.10x (51 days). Year-end payable days = 14.88 / 65.98 * 365 = 82.3 days. No abnormal stretch of creditors.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
4	6	7

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Annexure I, p. 225

65

Cash conversion cycle

Cash Conversion Cycle (Debtor + Inventory - Payable days): FY24: 189.7 days → FY25: 182.6 days → FY26: 190.4 days (or year-end basis: FY24: 151.8 days → FY25: 159.6 days → FY26: 167.7 days). Stable ~180-190 days cycle.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY24	FY25	FY26
189	182	190	151	159	167

OK

Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 224-226

66

Contingent liabilities vs net worth

Contingent liabilities: FY26: ₹0.00 cr (Nil); FY25: ₹0.00 cr (Nil); FY24: ₹0.15 cr (₹1.51M bank guarantees). Contingent liabilities as % of FY26 Net Worth (₹122.02 cr) is 0.00%.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24	FY26
₹0	₹0	₹0	Net Worth (₹122

OK

Summary of Contingent Liabilities, p. 65; Restated Financials Note 40, p. 263

67

Capex history vs proposed capex

Historical Capex (Cash Outflows for PPE & Intangibles): FY24: ₹28.64 cr, FY25: ₹15.41 cr, FY26: ₹11.55 cr (Total 3-yr Capex = ₹55.60 cr). Proposed IPO Capex: ₹29.97 cr over FY27-FY28 (₹5.00 cr in FY27, ₹24.97 cr in FY28). Proposed capex is well in line with historical execution scale.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26	FY27	FY27	FY28
₹28	₹15	₹11	FY28 (₹5	, ₹24	)

OK

Annexure IV (Cash Flows), p. 228; Objects of the Offer, p. 98

68

Dividend history

Dividends Paid: FY24: ₹0.56 cr (₹5.59M), FY25: ₹0.56 cr (₹5.59M), FY26: ₹2.09 cr (₹20.88M, dividend of ₹0.40/sh). Board has recommended sustainable dividend payouts.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY25	FY26
₹0	₹0	₹2

OK

Annexure IV, p. 228; Dividend Policy, p. 221; Note 47.2, p. 268

69

Standalone vs consolidated divergence

Minimal divergence: Subsidiary Hy-Tech ACR Private Limited was an inactive entity struck off on Jan 20, 2026. Consolidated revenue and PAT are virtually 100% Hy-Tech standalone.

OK

Restated Financials Note 1 & 2, p. 230; Note 47.4, p. 270

70

Material restatement adjustments?

No material restatements to profits or equity. Annexure VII Part A confirms nil adjustments to historical profits or equity; only standard Ind AS grouping and audit trail disclosures under Part B.

OK

Restated Financial Statements, Annexure VII, p. 275

71

Auditor qualifications / emphasis of matter

Unmodified audit report. Only informational non-adjusting remark regarding audit trail (edit log) feature not enabled at Nashik unit till June 24, 2024 and database-level direct logging limitation in ERP. No financial qualification.

OK

Auditor's Report, p. 224; Annexure VII Part B, p. 275

72

Aggressive revenue-recognition policy?

Conservative policy under Ind AS 115: Revenue from sale of goods recognized upon transfer of control/dispatch or PPAP approval by OEM. Job work recognized upon completion/dispatch. Standard 60-day credit period.

OK

Material Accounting Policies Note 3.11, p. 238-239; MD&A, p. 285

LAYERS 5 & 6 • GOVERNANCE & RPT

Governance Architecture & Related Party Transactions

Promoters hold 97.99% pre-issue and retain ~71.23% post-issue with zero encumbrance or share pledge. Promoter loans of ₹4.00 cr were fully repaid by the company in FY26. Related party sales (3.62% of revenue) and purchases (0.15% of costs) are low and conducted on an arm's length basis. The Board is balanced with 50% independent directors carrying extensive corporate backgrounds.

Pre & Post-Issue Shareholding Structure

Shareholder Category / Promoter	Pre-IPO %	Post-IPO %	Pledge Status	Statutory Lock-in
-	-	-	Nil	Standard
-	-	-	Nil	Standard
-	-	-	Nil	Standard
-	-	-	Nil	Standard

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
73	Promoter background and track record	Hemant Tukaram Mondkar (CMD, 78 yrs) has 48+ years experience in precision machining and hydraulic engineering; co-promoters Surekha Mondkar (ED, 78 yrs) and Ashwin Mondkar (NED, US operations lead). No track record of corporate default or bankruptcy.	OK	Our Promoters, p. 215-218; Our Management, p. 200-204
Where in DRHP: 'Our Promoters', 'Management' Why It Matters: The quality and integrity of stewardship. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Prior failure/fraud = flag Exact Citation: Our Promoters, p. 215-218; Our Management, p. 200-204
74	Promoter holding pre-IPO	Promoters collectively hold 97.99% of pre-IPO equity capital (81,851,840 shares out of 83,531,840 shares: Hemant Mondkar 64.81%, Surekha Mondkar 24.83%, Ashwin Mondkar 8.35%).	OK	Capital Structure, p. 74, 92-93; Our Promoters, p. 215
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Skin in the game today. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 74, 92-93; Our Promoters, p. 215
75	Promoter holding post-IPO	Post-IPO Promoter holding remains strong at ~71.23% (67,562,390 shares out of 94,852,594 post-issue shares @ ₹53). Promoters retain firm controlling majority; high skin in the game.	OK	Capital Structure, p. 74, 92-95
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Alignment going forward. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Very low post-IPO = misalignment Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 74, 92-95
76	Promoter share pledge	0.00% (Nil promoter shares pledged). Confirmation provided that Promoters' shares are completely encumbrance-free.	OK	Capital Structure, p. 91
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure', Risk Factors Why It Matters: Pledging signals financial stress. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any meaningful pledge = flag Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 91
77	Promoter / KMP remuneration vs PAT and peers	FY26 Remuneration: CMD Hemant Mondkar ₹1.48 cr (₹14.81M), ED Surekha Mondkar ₹0.38 cr (₹3.77M). Total Promoter Remuneration = ₹1.86 cr (8.22% of FY26 PAT ₹22.59 cr). Other KMPs (CFO ₹0.35 cr, COO ₹0.47 cr, CS ₹0.10 cr). Reasonable vs sector benchmarks.	OK	Our Management, p. 204, 212-213; Note 47.2, p. 268-269
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Cash extraction relative to profits. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: High pay vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p. 204, 212-213; Note 47.2, p. 268-269
78	Group structure - complex / circular / many entities?	Simple group structure: 2 promoter group entities (NR Hy Tech Engineers Pvt Ltd, Hy Tech Fluid Power Pvt Ltd), 1 US affiliate (Hy-Tech USA Inc), and 1 fastner entity (Fasto Engineering). Sole subsidiary Hy-Tech ACR struck off in Jan 2026. No convoluted cross-holdings.	OK	Group Companies, p. 219; Note 47.1, p. 268
Where in DRHP: 'Our Group Companies' Why It Matters: Complexity is where value and leakage hide. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Complex web = flag Exact Citation: Group Companies, p. 219; Note 47.1, p. 268
79	Auditor - reputable? Recent change or resignation?	Statutory Auditors: G. M. Kapadia & Co., Chartered Accountants (reputable mid-tier firm with extensive capital markets audit experience). No mid-term resignation prior to IPO.	OK	General Information, p. 67; Restated Financials, p. 222
Where in DRHP: 'Auditors', history Why It Matters: Audit credibility and any pre-IPO churn. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Resignation before IPO = flag Exact Citation: General Information, p. 67; Restated Financials, p. 222
80	CFO / KMP churn before the IPO	Stable management team: CFO Sunil Satwani appointed Dec 28, 2024 (associated since Sept 2022); CS Sai Ranadive appointed Feb 5, 2025; COO Sandeep Rane associated since April 2023. Professionalization ahead of listing.	OK	Our Management, p. 212-214
Where in DRHP: 'Management', history Why It Matters: Instability in key finance roles before listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: CFO exit pre-IPO = flag Exact Citation: Our Management, p. 212-214
81	Board: proportion of independent directors	Board consists of 8 Directors: 3 Executive/Promoter (CMD, ED, WTD Sunil Sathe), 1 Non-Executive Promoter Director (Ashwin Mondkar), and 4 Independent Directors (50.0% of Board, including 1 woman Independent Director Nandeeta Wagh). Fully compliant with SEBI LODR.	OK	Our Management - Board of Directors, p. 200-203
Where in DRHP: 'Management' Why It Matters: Strength of independent oversight. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Below norms = flag Exact Citation: Our Management - Board of Directors, p. 200-203
82	Independent-director credentials - real or token?	Real professional credentials: (i) Satish Kulkarni (Ex-Chairman SCIB Paints / Asian Paints 27 yrs exp); (ii) Chetan Sapre (FCA, valuation expert); (iii) Vivek Patwardhan (ex-HR head Asian Paints); (iv) Nandeeta Wagh (ex-L&T / business leader).	OK	Our Management - Brief profiles of directors, p. 202-203
Where in DRHP: Director bios Why It Matters: Whether oversight is actually effective. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Token / related IDs = flag Exact Citation: Our Management - Brief profiles of directors, p. 202-203
83	ESOP / outstanding options - dilution overhang	Nil ESOP pool, nil outstanding convertible instruments, warrants, or options. Zero dilution overhang.	OK	Capital Structure, p. 96
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Future dilution of your stake. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large unvested pool = caution Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 96
84	Lock-in: promoter and anchor / pre-IPO investors	20% minimum promoter contribution locked in for 3 years (due to capex >50% of fresh issue); balance promoter holding locked for 1 year; pre-IPO non-promoter shares locked for 6 months; Anchor allocation (₹40.72 cr) locked 50% for 30 days and 50% for 90 days.	OK	Capital Structure, p. 90-91
Where in DRHP: 'Capital Structure' Why It Matters: Share supply that hits the market post-listing. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Big near-term unlocks = caution Exact Citation: Capital Structure, p. 90-91
85	Past corporate-governance issues / regulatory strictures	Nil SEBI, RBI, or Stock Exchange penalties/strictures against Company or Promoters in the last 5 years. Minor administrative/labour compliance notices disclosed and defended.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-317
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors, Litigation Why It Matters: A pattern of past behaviour. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any history = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-317

#

Checkpoint

Your Finding (Prospectus Data)

Status

Page Ref

86

Sales to related parties (% of revenue)

FY26: ₹6.86 cr (3.62% of revenue from operations: Hy-Tech USA Inc ₹6.71 cr, Hy Tech Fluid Power ₹0.12 cr, NR Hy Tech ₹0.03 cr); FY25: ₹5.05 cr (3.13%); FY24: ₹5.67 cr (4.11%). Low and stable percentage (<5%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
₹6	₹5	₹5

OK

Note 47.2, p. 268; Our Business, p. 180

87

Purchases from related parties (% of costs)

FY26: ₹0.10 cr (0.15% of raw material cost: NR Hy Tech ₹0.05 cr, Hy Tech Fluid Power ₹0.05 cr); FY25: ₹0.26 cr (0.43%); FY24: ₹0.15 cr (0.29%). Negligible related party procurement (<0.5%).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
₹0	₹0	₹0

OK

Note 47.2, p. 268

88

Loans / advances to promoter or related entities

Nil loans given to promoters or group entities. In fact, Promoters provided unsecured loans to the company (₹4.00 cr), which were fully repaid by the company during FY26. Outstanding loan balance is ₹0.00 as of March 31, 2026.

OK

Note 47.2 & 47.3, p. 268-269

89

Rent / royalty / brand fees paid to related parties

Nil brand royalty or trademark fee paid to promoters. Export commission paid to Hy-Tech USA Inc for North American distributor servicing: FY26: ₹1.86 cr (₹18.57M), FY25: ₹1.71 cr (₹17.05M), FY24: ₹1.41 cr (₹14.07M).

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY26	FY25	FY24
₹1	₹1	₹1

Watch

Note 47.2, p. 268; Our Business, p. 180

90

Outstanding RPT balances (receivable / payable)

As of March 31, 2026: Trade Receivables from related parties = ₹2.49 cr (primarily Hy-Tech USA Inc ₹2.40 cr); Payables = ₹0.98 cr (commission payable to Hy-Tech USA ₹0.90 cr, group trade payables ₹0.08 cr); KMP remuneration payable = ₹0.15 cr.

OK

Note 47.3, p. 269

91

RPT trend over 3 years

RPTs have remained steady in proportion to business scale: Sales to Hy-Tech USA grew moderately from ₹5.44 cr (FY24) to ₹6.71 cr (FY26) in tandem with US export growth; promoter loans were completely paid off in FY26.

Multi-Period Trend Breakdown

FY24	FY26	FY26
) to ₹6	) in tandem with US export growth	.

OK

Note 47.2 & 47.3, p. 268-269

92

Disclosed at arm's length? Pricing basis?

All related party transactions are disclosed as conducted in the ordinary course of business and on an arm's length basis, supported by audit committee review and Transfer Pricing documentation.

OK

Note 47, p. 268; Summary of Related Party Transactions, p. 66

93

Overall RPT concern level (Low / Medium / High)

Low. RPTs are transparent, commercial, and non-extractive. Promoter loans were repaid, purchases are <0.5%, and Hy-Tech USA serves as a genuine US distribution channel accounting for <4% of revenue.

OK

Synthesized from Note 47, p. 268-270; Our Business, p. 180

LAYER 7 • LITIGATION & REGULATORY

Litigation, Tax Disputes & Materiality Sizing

Outstanding legal proceedings represent standard commercial and tax disputes with low aggregate materiality relative to net worth.

Outstanding Legal & Tax Dispute Summary

Litigation / Regulatory Category	Case Count	Quantifiable Exposure	Materiality & Balance Sheet Risk
Indirect Tax Proceedings (GST Show Cause)	1	₹1.27 Cr	Evaluated
Direct Tax Proceedings against Director	1	₹0.24 Cr	Evaluated
Labour Court Wage Registers Notices	1	₹0.00 Cr	Evaluated
Criminal & Commercial Litigation	1	₹0.00 Cr	Evaluated
Statutory Audit Opinion & IFCoFR	1	₹0.00 Cr	Evaluated

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
94	Criminal cases against promoters / directors	Nil criminal cases against Company or Promoters. 1 historical case involving Director Sunil Sathe (arising from past role as CGM of TJSB Sahakari Bank in a 2014 loan recovery complaint; dismissed by CJM Thane in 2018, criminal revision application pending).	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 314
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: An integrity red flag that can override the numbers. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 314
95	Material civil / commercial cases - company	Nil material civil/commercial cases pending against the Company exceeding the materiality threshold (₹8.97M). Note: Post-DRHP claim by Fedex Securities Pvt Ltd disclosed in Risk Factor #42.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-314; Risk Factor #42, p. 43
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Direct business and financial risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-314; Risk Factor #42, p. 43
96	Direct + indirect tax disputes and amounts	Indirect Tax: 2 matters totaling ₹1.27 cr (₹12.72M), primarily a GST show cause notice dated May 14, 2026 for ₹1.27 cr (₹12.69M) for FY23 GSTR-1 vs 3B and 3B vs 2A mismatch. Direct Tax: 1 case against Director for ₹0.24 cr (₹2.35M).	OK	Outstanding Litigation - Tax Proceedings, p. 316
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Contingent cash outflows. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large vs PAT = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation - Tax Proceedings, p. 316
97	Regulatory / statutory actions (SEBI, RBI, environmental, labour)	Nil SEBI/RBI or environmental actions. 2 minor labour court complaints by Govt Labour Officer Thane against Promoter Hemant Mondkar & Fasto Engineering under Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages Act regarding wage registers/notices.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 315
Where in DRHP: 'Outstanding Litigation' Why It Matters: Signals compliance culture. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Active actions = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 315
98	Total quantifiable amount involved	Total quantifiable exposure across Company and Director tax disputes = ₹1.51 cr (₹15.07 million: Company GST ₹12.72M + Director Direct Tax ₹2.35M).	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 316
Where in DRHP: Litigation summary Why It Matters: Sizing the aggregate exposure. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 316
99	Materiality vs PAT and net worth	Total quantifiable exposure of ₹1.51 cr represents 6.67% of FY26 PAT (₹22.59 cr) and 1.24% of FY26 Net Worth (₹122.02 cr). Highly manageable and poses zero solvency threat.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-316; Restated Financials, p. 224-226
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Whether the exposure is survivable. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Multiple of PAT / net worth = flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-316; Restated Financials, p. 224-226
100	Any case threatening a key licence or the business model?	No. None of the pending tax, labour, or legal proceedings threaten manufacturing licenses, MIDC factory leases, operating approvals, or the core business model.	OK	Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-318; Government Approvals, p. 318
Where in DRHP: Litigation, Risk Factors Why It Matters: Existential risk to operations. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Yes = serious flag Exact Citation: Outstanding Litigation, p. 313-318; Government Approvals, p. 318

LAYER 8 • VALUATION & PEER BENCHMARK

Valuation: Peer Comparison & Multiples Benchmark

Valuation benchmark indicates competitive pricing relative to listed industry peers and forward earnings power.

Listed Industry Peer Valuation Benchmark

Company Name / Peer Benchmark	P/E (x)	EV/EBITDA	P/S (x)	ROE (%)	ROCE (%)	YoY Growth	PAT Margin
Hy-Tech Engineers Limited (Upper Band)	22.3x	11.2x	-	-	24.4%	-	-
Aeroflex Industries Limited	107.0x	55.2x	-	-	19.2%	-	-
Dynamatic Technologies Limited	133.0x	62.4x	-	-	9.5%	-	-
Yuken India Limited	82.0x	22.1x	-	-	7.2%	-	-
Industry Peer Composite	107.3x	46.6x	-	-	12.0%	-	-

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
101	IPO P/E (post-issue, upper band)	Post-Issue P/E = 22.25x at Offer Price of ₹53 (based on FY26 post-issue diluted EPS of ₹2.38 on 9.49 cr shares; or 19.63x on FY26 pre-issue EPS of ₹2.70).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 111-113; Capital Structure, p. 74; Anchor Report
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price / compute Why It Matters: The headline earnings multiple you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 111-113; Capital Structure, p. 74; Anchor Report
102	Peer P/E - and is the peer set fair or cherry-picked?	Listed Peer P/E: Aeroflex Industries 107.04x, Dynamatic Technologies 133.00x, Yuken India 82.00x (Peer Average: 107.35x). While Dynamatic and Aeroflex enjoy aerospace/flexible hose scarcity premiums, Yuken (82.0x) is a direct hydraulics peer. Hy-Tech's 22.3x P/E is at a steep 73-83% discount to all three peers.	OK	Basis for Offer Price - Peer Comparison, p. 113
Where in DRHP: 'Basis for Offer Price' Why It Matters: Companies pick flattering peers; rebuild the set yourself. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Cherry-picked rich peers = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price - Peer Comparison, p. 113
103	EV / EBITDA vs peers	Hy-Tech Post-Issue EV/EBITDA = ~11.21x (EV ₹467.5 cr / FY26 EBITDA ₹41.69 cr; Pre-issue EV/EBITDA = 12.41x). Peer EV/EBITDA multiples trade between 20x to 65x (Aeroflex ~55x, Dynamatic ~60x+, Yuken ~22x).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 224-226
Where in DRHP: Compute / peers Why It Matters: A capital-structure-neutral comparison. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 224-226
104	Price / Sales (especially if loss-making)	Post-Issue Price / Sales = 2.65x (Post-issue MCap ₹502.72 cr / FY26 Revenue from Operations ₹189.40 cr). Company is solidly profitable (11.7% PAT margin), making P/S a secondary metric.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 226
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The relevant lens for unprofitable companies. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Aggressive P/S on losses = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 116; Restated Financials, p. 226
105	Price / Book	Pre-Issue P/B = 3.63x (₹53 / NAV ₹14.61); Post-Issue P/B = ~2.92x (₹53 / post-issue NAV ~₹18.14). Attractive vs Aeroflex P/B (13.5x) and Dynamatic P/B (9.4x).	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 113, 116; Other Financial Information, p. 276
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: Relevant for asset-heavy and financial businesses. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 113, 116; Other Financial Information, p. 276
106	Implied market cap at IPO	Implied Market Capitalization at IPO: ₹502.72 cr (94,852,594 post-issue equity shares @ ₹53 per share).	OK	Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 74; Anchor Report
Where in DRHP: Compute Why It Matters: The absolute size of what you're buying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 74; Anchor Report
107	ROE vs peers	Hy-Tech FY26 ROE = 20.24% vs Peer ROEs: Aeroflex 14.06%, Dynamatic Technologies 7.89%, Yuken India 4.27%. Hy-Tech delivers higher ROE than all three listed peers despite trading at a fraction of their multiple.	OK	Basis for Offer Price - KPI Comparison, p. 116
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does quality justify any premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + lower ROE = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price - KPI Comparison, p. 116
108	ROCE vs peers	Hy-Tech FY26 ROCE = 24.40% vs Peer ROCEs: Aeroflex 19.15%, Dynamatic Technologies 9.54%, Yuken India 7.21%. Hy-Tech leads the entire peer set in capital productivity.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Capital efficiency relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
109	Growth vs peers	Hy-Tech 2-yr Revenue CAGR (FY24-26) = 17.28% and PAT CAGR = 39.58%. Peers: Aeroflex Rev CAGR 17.9% / PAT CAGR 15.3%; Dynamatic Rev CAGR 6.5% / PAT CAGR -30.0%; Yuken Rev CAGR 4.6% / PAT CAGR -12.5%. Hy-Tech PAT growth significantly outperforms.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Does faster growth justify the premium? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium + slower growth = flag Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
110	Margins vs peers	Hy-Tech FY26 EBITDA Margin = 22.01% (vs Aeroflex 22.50%, Dynamatic 11.27%, Yuken 10.93%); Hy-Tech PAT Margin = 11.68% (vs Aeroflex 12.53%, Dynamatic 3.61%, Yuken 3.09%). Hy-Tech margins match market leader Aeroflex and double Dynamatic/Yuken.	OK	Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
Where in DRHP: Compare Why It Matters: Quality of earnings relative to price. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
111	IPO price vs WACA / pre-IPO placement (the markup)	Secondary transaction WACA in last 3 years = ₹15.12 (IPO price ₹53 is 3.51x markup). Promoters' historical cost is ₹0.12 - ₹0.22/sh. Last secondary transfer in July 2026 was at ₹18.00/sh.	Watch	Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 93-94; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118
Where in DRHP: Basis for Offer Price Why It Matters: What insiders paid versus what you're paying. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Large multiple over WACA = flag Exact Citation: Cover Page, p. 1; Capital Structure, p. 93-94; Basis for Offer Price, p. 117-118
112	Is the premium justified by ROCE / ROE / growth / margins?	Yes. Hy-Tech is priced at 22.25x post-issue P/E while generating 24.40% ROCE, 20.24% ROE, 22.01% EBITDA margin, and 1.23x cumulative CFO/PAT conversion. The modest 3.5x markup over unlisted transfer WACA (₹15.12) is strongly supported by high return ratios and superior growth vs peers.	OK	Synthesized from Basis for Offer Price, p. 113-116; Restated Financials, p. 224-228
Where in DRHP: Synthesise Why It Matters: The core valuation verdict. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Premium unsupported by quality = flag Exact Citation: Synthesized from Basis for Offer Price, p. 113-116; Restated Financials, p. 224-228
113	What growth does the price implicitly assume?	At 22.25x P/E with a post-issue D/E of ~0.10x post-debt repayment, the price implicitly assumes moderate earnings growth of 12-15% CAGR, which is well below the historical 39.6% PAT CAGR and easily achievable with 41-83% capacity expansion at Shirwal, Kavathe, and Pithampur.	OK	Synthesized from Objects, p. 98-103; Basis for Offer Price, p. 116
Where in DRHP: Reverse the multiple / judgment Why It Matters: Are the embedded expectations realistic? Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Heroic assumptions = flag Exact Citation: Synthesized from Objects, p. 98-103; Basis for Offer Price, p. 116

LAYER 9 • STATED RISK ADMISSIONS

In The Company's Own Words: Stated Risk Admissions

Management highlights key operational sensitivities including raw material pricing, client concentration, and execution timelines.

#	Checkpoint	Your Finding (Prospectus Data)	Status	Page Ref
114	Top 5 risk factors the company itself lists	(1) Customer concentration: Top 10 customers contributed 45.32% (FY26) and 48.72% (FY24) of revenue; (2) Export concentration: 29.37% of revenue from exports (USA 21.42%), exposed to trade tariffs and forex; (3) Supplier concentration: Top 10 suppliers account for 65.61% of raw material purchases; (4) Lack of long-term customer contracts (order-by-order purchase orders); (5) Sectoral dependency on construction (22.9%) and agriculture machinery (22.8%).	OK	Risk Factors #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, p. 17-24
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: Management's own stated worries - read them first. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1, #2, #3, #4, #8, p. 17-24
115	Any genuine dealbreaker buried in boilerplate?	No structural dealbreaker. Key operational risks to track: (i) 100% of capex machinery orders (₹28.54 cr) unplaced as of RHP date (RF #10); (ii) Leased properties for corporate office and several units (RF #20); (iii) Promoter group entity Hy-Tech USA operates in similar business line / exclusive US distributor (RF #14). None constitute existential dealbreakers.	OK	Risk Factors #10, #14, #19, #20, p. 25, 27, 30, 31
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The serious risks hide among generic ones; find them. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #10, #14, #19, #20, p. 25, 27, 30, 31
116	Quantified risks (e.g. 'X would cut revenue by Y%')	Quantified exposures: (i) Top 10 customer revenue: ₹85.84 cr (45.32% in FY26); (ii) Top 10 supplier purchases: ₹44.38 cr (65.61% in FY26); (iii) Unplaced machinery orders: ₹28.54 cr (100% of capex); (iv) Leased property count: 4 out of 6 units on lease; (v) Pending indirect tax demand: ₹1.27 cr.	OK	Risk Factors #1, #6, #10, #20, #27, p. 17, 22, 25, 31, 35
Where in DRHP: 'Risk Factors' Why It Matters: The risks management bothered to quantify are usually the real ones. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: - Exact Citation: Risk Factors #1, #6, #10, #20, #27, p. 17, 22, 25, 31, 35
117	Going-concern or liquidity language anywhere?	No going-concern qualification, liquidity warnings, or debt default language anywhere in the RHP or Auditor's Report. Company generated ₹30.33 cr CFO in FY26 and has positive net cash post-IPO.	OK	Auditor's Report, p. 222-224; Restated Financials, p. 224-228; MD&A, p. 278
Where in DRHP: Risk Factors / Auditor Why It Matters: A direct signal of survival risk. Benchmark / Red Flag Trigger: Any going-concern language = serious flag Exact Citation: Auditor's Report, p. 222-224; Restated Financials, p. 224-228; MD&A, p. 278

AUDIT TALLY • 117-CHECKPOINT RISK MATRIX

Red-Flag Dashboard: 117-Checkpoint Audit Tally

105

Checkpoints Clean (OK)

12

Watchlist Monitor Rows

0

High-Severity Red Flags

117

Total Forensic Checkpoints

L1 Story & Positioning

10 0 0

L2 Issue Structure & Objects

11 5 0

L3 Business Quality

15 3 0

L4 Financial Quality

26 2 0

L5 Governance

13 0 0

L6 Related Party Transactions

7 1 0

L7 Litigation & Regulatory

7 0 0

L8 Valuation

12 1 0

L9 The Company's Own Risk Factors

4 0 0

Layer 1: Story & Positioning

10 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 2: Issue Structure & Objects

11 OK 5 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 3: Business Quality

15 OK 3 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 4: Financial Quality

26 OK 2 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 5: Governance

13 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 6: Related Party Transactions

7 OK 1 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 7: Litigation & Regulatory

7 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 8: Valuation

12 OK 1 Watch 0 Flag

Layer 9: The Company's Own Risk Factors

4 OK 0 Watch 0 Flag

How To Read This Risk Matrix

These tallies reflect the 117 checkpoints evaluated across the 9 analytical layers. In institutional forensic analysis, clusters matter far more than isolated totals: an amber or red flag in Layer 4 (Financial Quality) or Layer 5 (Governance) carries exponentially higher structural weight than narrative observations in Layer 1. Always evaluate flags against company peers and industry context.

Statutory Educational Compliance & Analyst Disclaimer

This research report is prepared strictly for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, tax, or underwriting advice. Neither IPrOspecta nor the author (Tanish Vijayvargiya) is a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or SEBI-registered Investment Adviser under the SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014 or SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013.

Nothing in this publication should be construed as an explicit or implicit recommendation, solicitation, endorsement, or offer to buy, sell, subscribe to, or hold any security, IPO application, or financial product. Prospective investors must conduct their own independent due diligence, carefully review the complete Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) / Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed with SEBI and the stock exchanges, and consult a qualified, SEBI-registered financial adviser before committing capital.

Position Disclosure: The author and IPrOspecta maintain zero commercial affiliation with the issuer company, book running lead managers, selling shareholders, or syndicate underwriters. All opinions expressed represent personal analytical frameworks.