BlueStone IPO Fund Utilization Delayed as Rs. 56.63 Crore Remains Unutilized
BlueStone Jewellery & Lifestyle faced delays in IPO fund utilization with Rs. 56.63 crore remaining unutilized beyond the March 31, 2026 deadline. CARE Ratings' monitoring report shows the company utilized Rs. 763.37 crore out of Rs. 820 crore raised, primarily for working capital and issue expenses. The company continues to report losses, with Rs. 18 crore net loss in nine months of FY26, though reduced from previous years' higher losses.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Bluestone jewellery & lifestyle has faced implementation delays in its IPO fund utilization, with Rs. 56.63 crore remaining unutilized beyond the March 31, 2026 deadline stipulated in the offer document. The monitoring agency report by CARE Ratings Limited reveals significant concerns about the company's fund deployment timeline and financial performance.
Monitoring Agency Report Highlights Delays
CARE Ratings Limited, serving as the monitoring agency, submitted its quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2026, revealing that the company failed to meet the deployment timeline specified in the IPO prospectus. The report indicates that gross IPO proceeds of Rs. 56.63 crore remain unutilized as of the quarter end, with no supporting approvals received for timeline extension.
| Parameter: | Details |
|---|---|
| Total IPO Size: | Rs. 820.00 crore |
| Amount Utilized: | Rs. 763.37 crore |
| Unutilized Amount: | Rs. 56.63 crore |
| Original Deadline: | March 31, 2026 |
| Monitoring Agency: | CARE Ratings Limited |
Fund Utilization Breakdown
The detailed utilization pattern shows mixed progress across different objectives. For working capital requirements, the company utilized Rs. 725.65 crore out of the allocated Rs. 750.00 crore, leaving Rs. 24.35 crore unutilized. This included Rs. 200.00 crore deployed during the quarter, primarily Rs. 30.00 crore for gold purchases and Rs. 170.00 crore placed as fixed deposits for gold metal loan margins.
| Object: | Allocated (Rs. Crore) | Utilized (Rs. Crore) | Unutilized (Rs. Crore) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Working Capital: | 750.00 | 725.65 | 24.35 |
| General Corporate: | 20.75 | 15.00 | 5.75 |
| Issue Expenses: | 49.25 | 22.72 | 26.53 |
Financial Performance Concerns
The monitoring agency report also highlighted the company's challenging financial position, noting net losses of Rs. 142.24 crore in FY24 and Rs. 219.21 crore in FY25. While losses reduced to Rs. 18.00 crore in the nine months of FY26, the continued losses raise questions about the viability of the fund deployment objectives.
Deployment of Unutilized Proceeds
The unutilized Rs. 56.63 crore has been deployed in fixed deposits worth Rs. 50.00 crore with AU Small Finance Bank at 7.05% interest rate, maturing on October 3, 2026. The remaining Rs. 6.63 crore remains in the Axis Bank public offer account, with the monitoring agency noting that the company has transferred funds from the monitoring agency account to current accounts, resulting in comingling of funds.
Regulatory Compliance and Board Response
The Board of Directors approved the utilization of unutilized IPO proceeds for FY 2026-27, stating that the unutilized portion will be used for general corporate purposes. The company maintains that the offer document allows for utilization in the next fiscal year if the scheduled deployment is not met, though the monitoring agency noted the absence of formal approvals for timeline extension.
The report was signed by Managing Director Gaurav Singh Kushwaha and submitted to both BSE and NSE on April 23, 2026, maintaining the company's commitment to regulatory transparency despite the implementation delays.
Will SEBI impose penalties or sanctions on Bluestone for failing to meet IPO fund deployment deadlines without formal extension approvals?
How might the continued net losses and delayed fund utilization impact Bluestone's credit rating and future borrowing costs?
Could the comingling of IPO funds with current account funds trigger additional regulatory scrutiny or compliance violations?

































