IRM Energy Limited
Preview the depth — unlock the full forensic study.
You're reading the free Overview. The full Landscape study, the Lenses, governance and quality scans unlock with Pro — across 5,000 Indian companies.
Briefing
IRM Energy Limited — the brief
Forensic posture: Serious flags. The auditor raised 1 high and 2 material flags centred on a ₹95.47 Cr loan to a joint venture that is 242 days overdue with no impairment booked, plus ₹244 Cr in advances to associates that breach governance rules; related-party dealings show a ₹19.51 Cr licence fee spike (437% year-on-year) to a promoter trust and ₹48.11 Cr in corporate guarantees for associates, yet the earnings quality composite ranks excellent and the company sits in the financial safe zone.
Auditor’s report (CARO 2020)
Auditor’s assessment Serious flags. Auditor: Mukesh M. Shah & Co.. Opinion: Unqualified. Fiscal year FY24-25. 1 critical, 2 material, 0 minor flags.
- Advance to associates without compliance: The company provided advances to associates that violated corporate governance rules and lacked proper documentation.
- Loan default to joint venture entity: The company has an outstanding loan to a joint venture entity that is 242 days overdue as of the balance sheet date, indicating a material repayment default.
- Related party transaction non-compliance: Advances to associates amounting to ₹244.12 million exceed omnibus approval limits, lack adequate documentation, and remain outstanding beyond normal credit periods.
Related-party transactions
Assessment Concerning. Disclosed volume of ₹44 Cr across 33 related parties. Fiscal year FY24-25.
- JV Loan Overdue; No Impairment Recognised: The Company's ₹95.47 million loan to joint venture Ni-Hon Cylinders Private Limited (originally ₹74.90 million at 10.50% p.a., extended to July 2024) has become due with ₹20.57 million accrued interest unpaid as of March 31, 2025, yet no im
- Large Advances to Associates May Be Loans: Advances of ₹110 million to Venuka Polymers and ₹134.12 million to Farm Gas (both associates) exceed typical purchase order values, have remained outstanding longer than normal trade practice, and the Company itself acknowledges they may be
- Large Licence Fee Paid to Promoter-Linked Trust: IRM Energy paid ₹19.51 Cr in licence fees to IRM Trust (a promoter entity) in FY25, a very large jump from ₹3.635 Cr in FY24 (a ~437% increase), representing a significant cash outflow to a promoter-related party with no detailed commercial
- Corporate Guarantees of ₹48.11 Cr for Associate Entities: The Company has given corporate guarantees worth ₹481.10 million (₹48.11 Cr) in favour of banks extending credit facilities to associate entities (Farm Gas and Venuka Polymers), and also pays guarantee commission to Cadila Pharmaceuticals f
Contingent liabilities
Assessment Concerning. Total disclosed: ₹272 Cr (28.6% of net worth). Fiscal year FY24-25.
- Corporate guarantee for associate entities' bank credit facilities
- Performance Bank Guarantee issued in favour of PNGRB by banks
Corporate governance
Board of 10 directors, 70% independent. Chair: Dr. Rajiv I. Modi. Chair and CEO roles are separated. Statutory auditor: M/s Mukesh M. Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants. Board remuneration: 2.4% of net profit. Fiscal year FY24-25.
“These particular advances were made without complying with the provisions of Section 177 or 188 of the Companies Act, 2013, and lack adequate documentation to support the nature and purpose of the payments.”
What retail misses·The three material governance breaches—an unimpaired defaulted loan, undocumented advances that may be hidden loans, and a 437% spike in licence fees to the promoter—sit in the auditor's and related-party disclosures but rarely surface in news or social media commentary; the financial ratios look strong precisely because the overdue loan and doubtful advances have not yet been written down.
Strengths noted in disclosures: The auditor issued an unqualified opinion despite the material flags, indicating the financial statements remain fairly presented under accounting standards. · Earnings quality composite scores 85/100 with excellent marks on cash-profit alignment, low manipulation risk, and above-average profitability; academic engines place the company in the safe zone for bankruptcy risk (Altman Z = 4.18) and award it a perfect 8/8 on fundamental quality (Piotroski F-score). · Capital commitments and tax disputes are minor (₹65.09 Cr in contracts and ₹0.62 Cr in GST appeal) relative to net worth, reducing tail risk from litigation.
Forensic signal
From the company's own filingsStrong: Valuation · Weak: Momentum · Yield · Size