Brands
Meesho files confidential IPO
MUMBAI: Meesho, one of India’s fastest-growing e-commerce platforms, has filed a confidential draft red herring prospectus (DRHP) with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)—marking its first major step toward a public listing. The move allows the company to fine-tune its offer documents privately with regulators before going public, a route increasingly popular among Indian tech firms preparing to list.
Founded in 2015 by Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Barnwal, Meesho built its model around affordability, simplicity, and deep regional access—serving value-conscious shoppers in tier-2 and tier-3 cities. The platform, which offers zero-commission selling for merchants and operates in multiple regional languages, has attracted over 150 million annual transacting users. Its focus on low-ticket, everyday essentials has helped it compete with giants like Amazon and Flipkart, particularly in unbranded fashion and general merchandise.
Meesho has shown significant financial momentum ahead of the IPO. In FY24, it recorded revenues of Rs7,615 crore, a 33 per cent jump year-on-year. More notably, it reduced its net loss to Rs305 crore—down sharply from Rs1,675 crore in FY23—thanks to logistics optimisation and better ad-spend efficiency. In a key pre-IPO restructuring, the company also completed a reverse-flip, moving its parent entity from the US to India to simplify governance and improve eligibility for local listing.
The public offering is expected between September and October 2025, with lead managers including Citi, Kotak Mahindra Capital, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and Axis Capital. Market participants suggest Meesho could seek a valuation between $6.5–7.5 billion, positioning it among the most anticipated Indian tech IPOs of the year.
Meesho’s filing comes amid a broader wave of confidential listings in India. So far in 2025, Indian firms have raised nearly $6 billion through IPOs, with more than 140 companies in the regulatory pipeline. Investor appetite for digital-first, scalable platforms remains strong—particularly those showing a clear path to profitability.
Key drivers for Meesho include its continued expansion into smaller towns, enabled by UPI penetration, affordable mobile data, and a rising appetite for value-led online shopping. The company’s private-label brands in fashion, home, and beauty now account for nearly 20 per cent of sales, and its Meesho Express logistics arm is targeting 24-hour delivery in the top 200 districts to boost stickiness and margins.
Despite these headwinds, the company’s ability to cut losses while scaling revenues has buoyed investor confidence. The confidential filing gives Meesho up to 18 months to finalise its listing—offering time to strengthen financials further, and potentially turn a profit before debuting.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
