Burnpur Cement Limited's Board of Directors, at its meeting held on May 18, 2026, approved the audited standalone financial results for the quarter and financial year ended March 31, 2026, pursuant to Regulation 30 and 33 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The statutory audit was conducted by M/s. Bhagi Bhardwaj Gaur & Co., Chartered Accountants (ICAI Firm Registration No. 007895N), who issued an unmodified (clean) audit opinion on the financial results. The meeting commenced at 6:00 PM and concluded at 7:00 PM.

Financial Performance: Deepening Losses

The company reported zero revenue from operations for the full year ended March 31, 2026, continuing the trend from the prior year when operational assets were sold. The financial results reflect a significant deterioration driven almost entirely by mounting finance costs. The following table presents the key financial metrics for the periods under review:

Finance costs of ₹7,702.51 lakhs accounted for the overwhelming majority of total expenses of ₹7,923.86 lakhs in FY26. The company has no operational unit as on March 31, 2026, following the sale of all immovable and moveable operational assets at Patratu to M/s Ultratech Cement Limited on November 29, 2023, by M/s UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (UVARCL) under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Balance Sheet and Key Ratios

The company's balance sheet as at March 31, 2026 reflects a deeply negative equity position, with total assets of ₹207.95 lakhs against total current liabilities of ₹57,537.76 lakhs. The following table summarises the assets and liabilities position:

Key financial ratios further underscore the company's stressed position. The current ratio stood at 0.002 times (vs. 0.003 times in the prior year), while the interest coverage ratio improved to -34.81 times from -135.71 times, reflecting a positive change of 74%. The debt equity ratio remained unchanged at -0.98 times, with debt increasing by 16% and shareholders' funds declining by 16% year-on-year. The Debt Service Coverage Ratio for the year is -0.004 times as compared to the previous year figure of -0.001 times, reflecting a change of 285%, driven by an increase in debts by 16% and a decrease in EBIT by 349%. Both operating profit margin and net profit margin remained nil, as the company generated no operational revenue during the year.

Cash Flow Position

The cash flow statement for FY26 reflects continued cash outflows across operating and investing activities. Net cash used in operating activities stood at ₹(221.53) lakhs, compared to ₹(233.56) lakhs in FY25. Net cash used in investing activities was ₹(0.45) lakhs. Net cash from financing activities was ₹212.93 lakhs, driven by short-term borrowing proceeds of ₹215.43 lakhs. The net decrease in cash and cash equivalents for the year was ₹(9.05) lakhs, with the closing cash balance at ₹77.95 lakhs against an opening balance of ₹86.99 lakhs.

Going Concern and Auditor Emphasis

The statutory auditors, M/s. Bhagi Bhardwaj Gaur & Co., issued an Emphasis of Matter paragraph in their report, noting that the company discontinued operations entirely from November 2023 after incurring continuous losses, raising significant doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern. The management has itself concluded that the company is not a going concern. Additionally, cash in hand of ₹22.90 lakhs pertaining to the Asansol Unit has been lying idle for more than three years. The company is also involved in several ongoing indirect tax litigations, the financial impact of which is not ascertainable at present. The management has stated it is exploring opportunities for mergers, acquisitions, or other strategic transactions to restore going concern status.

Board Decisions: Key Appointments

In addition to approving the financial results, the board transacted the following key business at the May 18, 2026 meeting:

Mr. Pawan Pareek, aged about 56 years, is a Commerce Graduate with more than 36 years of experience in commercial, administration, and accounts functions. He is not debarred from holding the office of Director by virtue of any SEBI order or any other authority. The intimation was signed by Punam Kumari Sharma, Company Secretary of Burnpur Cement Limited.

Capital Reduction Update

Burnpur Cement Limited had undergone a scheme of arrangement for reduction of share capital, filed with NCLT, Kolkata Bench on June 6, 2020, and approved by the Hon'ble NCLT, Kolkata on October 30, 2024. Pursuant to this, the paid-up equity share capital was reduced from ₹86,12,43,630 (8,61,24,363 equity shares of ₹10 each) to ₹17,22,48,730 (1,72,24,873 equity shares of ₹10 each). The company has received listing approval from both stock exchanges and completed its corporate action process. Applications for trading approval are currently under process at the respective exchanges, with approvals awaited.

Burnpur Cement Limited has successfully defended against insolvency proceedings after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata dismissed an application filed by operational creditor Mittal Polysacks Private Limited. The tribunal's order dated 20-04-2026 ruled in favor of the cement manufacturer, allowing it to continue operations as a going concern.

Case Background and Claims

Mittal Polysacks Private Limited had filed the insolvency application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to recover an operational debt of ₹1,25,14,519. The operational creditor claimed this amount was due for polypropylene cement bags allegedly supplied to Burnpur Cement's Asansol plant between January 16, 2016 and December 23, 2016.

The operational creditor argued that the goods were accepted without objection and that Burnpur Cement had acknowledged the outstanding amounts through account confirmations dated March 31, 2018 and February 1, 2019. A demand notice under Section 8 of the Code was issued on September 29, 2021.

Burnpur Cement's Defense

Burnpur Cement mounted a comprehensive defense challenging multiple aspects of the claim. The company argued there was no written agreement or purchase orders between the parties, with invoices describing the arrangement as "verbal." Significantly, no primary evidence of delivery such as transport receipts, lorry challans, or goods receipt notes was provided.

The company highlighted that Mittal Polysacks was an "Associate" during the relevant period, with transactions disclosed as related party dealings. A key figure, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, served as director of both companies during the alleged supply period (January 2016 to December 2016).

Management Change and Irregularities

A crucial turning point came when UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. assumed management control of Burnpur Cement on October 1, 2019 under SARFAESI proceedings. The new management discovered serious irregularities including:

• Embezzlement and diversion of funds
• Siphoning of money by previous management
• Window dressing of accounts
• Substantial mismatch between recorded entries and actual documents

Consequently, the alleged outstanding entry of ₹1,25,14,519 in favor of Mittal Polysacks was reversed in subsequent financial statements and not carried forward beyond FY 2020-21, prior to the demand notice.

NCLT's Analysis and Ruling

The NCLT, comprising Member (Judicial) Smt. Bidisha Banerjee and Member (Technical) Cmde Siddharth Mishra, conducted a thorough analysis based on established legal precedents. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that if a plausible dispute exists, the petition must be rejected.

The tribunal found that Burnpur Cement had raised substantial and bona fide disputes that were "neither illusory nor spurious." The reversal of entries prior to the demand notice constituted a clear repudiation of liability, establishing a pre-existing dispute within the meaning of Sections 5(6) and 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code.

Previous Judicial Precedent

The NCLT also noted a previous case, Prarthna Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Burnpur Cement Ltd., where similar allegations of sham and collusive transactions during the previous management tenure were judicially considered. That judgment, affirmed by the NCLAT and Supreme Court, recognized serious irregularities in Burnpur Cement's affairs during the relevant period.

Final Outcome

The tribunal concluded that the disputes required detailed evidence and adjudication beyond the limited jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The five-year delay in issuing the demand notice without contemporaneous written demands further supported the finding of a plausible dispute.

With this dismissal, Burnpur Cement continues its operations without the threat of insolvency proceedings, while Mittal Polysacks retains the right to pursue its claim under other provisions of law if permissible.