The neutral trend reflects cautious sentiment toward the agrochemicals sector, along with the modest subscription figures in the main book.
The Rs 70.44 crore IPO consisted of a fresh issue worth Rs 64.28 crore and an offer for sale of Rs 6.16 crore.
Subscription interest was modest
The IPO was subscribed 1.63 times overall, led by strong NII participation at 3.63 times, while the retail category ended at 1.02 times—just above full subscription. QIBs bid 1.19 times, reflecting a measured institutional stance. The issue’s high minimum investment size of Rs 2,73,600 for retail investors also meant limited participation from small applicants.
Mahamaya Lifesciences manufactures pesticide formulations, technical-grade molecules and branded agri-inputs. It supplies bulk products to domestic agrochemical companies and several multinational firms.
The company also has a global footprint, with product registrations and sales in countries including Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, the UAE and Turkey. Its product portfolio spans key formulations such as Acetamiprid, Emamectin Benzoate, Imidacloprid, Paraquat Dichloride and multiple branded plant-health products.
The company posted strong growth in FY25, with revenue rising 64% to Rs 267.17 crore, while PAT grew 148% to Rs 12.94 crore. EBITDA increased to Rs 24.64 crore, and net worth nearly doubled to Rs 49.42 crore.
IPO proceeds will be used for equipment purchases, setting up a new technical manufacturing plant, warehouse construction, working-capital needs, and general corporate purposes.
The 0% GMP suggests a flat listing, unless market sentiment shifts positively before debut. With moderate subscription and a sector that has recently seen uneven performance due to monsoon variability and input-cost pressures, traders expect a stable but muted listing. The long-term outlook will depend on execution of the new plant, export traction and consistency in financial performance.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)
