Selected engagements

A mid-sized developer was redeveloping a housing society in Mumbai with a total project cost of ₹150 Cr. Construction stalled midway when the original lender pulled back, leaving residents in transit accommodation and the project unfunded.

A well-run hospital group was building a new 250-bed speciality facility at a total project cost of ₹95 Cr. It was also carrying an expensive legacy NBFC loan. Several banks declined on the grounds that the project was too large and too complex relative to the group's existing balance sheet.

An engineering company with annual sales of ₹240 Cr was banking with three different institutions. Its combined working-capital limit of ₹48 Cr was split across the three, renewing at different times and at different rates. Cash was permanently tight, and the finance team spent more time managing banks than managing the business.

A pharma formulation manufacturer with annual sales of ₹60 Cr wanted to build a WHO-GMP compliant production block to qualify for export orders, at an estimated project cost of ₹35 Cr. Lenders were cautious about the regulatory approval timeline and the size of the capex relative to the existing balance sheet.

A Mumbai-based textile exporter with annual export turnover of ₹65 Cr held confirmed orders from European buyers, but its existing bank limit had not kept pace with growth. Production was at risk of slipping because raw material could not be procured on time.

This spinning mill had grown annual sales from ₹32 Cr to ₹72 Cr over four years, but the bank had never revised its working-capital limit. The cash credit limit remained at ₹8 Cr, the same as when the business was half its current size. The owner was funding the gap through expensive bill discounting and private borrowing.

A spice and food processing business with annual turnover of ₹38 Cr was running on ageing machinery and turning away bulk orders it could not fulfil on time. It needed ₹8 Cr for a new grinding and packaging line, plus additional working capital to handle a seasonal procurement cycle the bank was cautious about.

A logistics operator with annual turnover of ₹22 Cr wanted to add eight trucks to service a new long-term contract, but had no working-capital cushion to cover fuel, toll and driver costs through the ramp-up period.

A well-run FMCG distribution business with annual sales of ₹28 Cr had never used a bank. All working capital, for stock purchase and supplier payments, came from private lenders at 2.5 to 3% a month, or 30 to 36% a year. The promoters assumed banks do not lend to trading businesses without heavy collateral.

An IT services company with annual turnover of ₹14 Cr had healthy, growing revenue but nothing to offer as conventional collateral: no factory, no stock, no property. Client payment cycles of 60 to 90 days meant it regularly ran short of working capital between billing and collection.

A new garment unit was starting operations with projected first-year sales of ₹5 Cr. It needed funding for two distinct things: sewing machines and equipment, a one-time cost, and day-to-day working capital for raw material and wages. There was no property to offer as security and no borrowing history. Most advisers told them it was not possible.

A Mumbai-based trader with annual sales of around ₹4.8 Cr was funding his entire working capital from private lenders at 3 to 4% a month, close to 40% a year. He had never approached a bank, believing that traders do not qualify for bank facilities.