Trucking aggregator Blackbuck logs 31% rise in Q4 revenue, turns in a profit of Rs 280 crore
Live Events
Trucking aggregator Blackbuck on Tuesday announced its January-March quarter results for the financial year 2024-25, which saw a 31% year-on-year (YoY) increase in operating revenue to Rs 121.8 crore from Rs 93.2 crore reported in the year before.The Bengaluru-based company also turned profitable in the fourth quarter. Its net profit for the fourth quarter of FY25 stood at Rs 280.1 crore, which is a significant improvement from the Rs 90.7 crore loss reported last year for the same quarter. This is on account of the reduction in total expenses as well as a deferred tax credit of Rs 247 crore.For the March quarter, the company reduced its employee benefit cost to Rs 33 crore in Q4 FY25 from Rs 128 crore in Q4 FY24. Depreciation, amortisation and other expenses together brought the total expenses to Rs 93 crore, down from Rs 186 crore reported last year for the same time.The company's core businesses, tolling and vehicle tracking solutions, continued to account for the majority of revenues and saw a 28% YoY growth in the March quarter compared to the year before period.Meanwhile, for the financial year ended 31 March 2025, the company's losses narrowed to Rs 8.6 crore from Rs 193.9 crore reported in FY2024. The operating revenue for FY25 almost doubled to Rs 426.7 crore from Rs 296.9 crore.'Platform engagement metrics continue to grow, on a YoY basis: almost 21% growth in monthly transacting truck operators, almost 35% growth in payments GTV and growth of about 8.5% in time spent by users on the app in FY25,' the company said in its investor presentation.Further, the company informed the stock exchanges that in a meeting held on Tuesday, its board of directors approved a proposal to change the company's name from 'Zinka Logistics Solutions Limited' to 'Blackbuck Limited' or any other name after the ministry of corporate affairs approves, subject to shareholder approval. Accel and Flipkart-backed Blackbuck got listed on the stock exchanges last November . On Tuesday, its share dropped 1.56% to close at Rs 457.45 on the BSE. The results were announced post-market hours.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tripura ADC inks MoUs with UK institutions
Agartala: The Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (ADC) has signed three MoUs with prominent UK-based institutions in London recently, said ADC's ruling party TIPRA Motha founder Pradyot Kishore Debbarman on Thursday, reports Biswendu Bhattacharjee. The MoUs were focused on skill development, cultural promotion and academic exchange, marking a milestone in Tripura's global outreach efforts.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Riju Ravindran NCLT: Riju Ravindran Challenges GLAS Trust's Authority in Byju's Insolvency Case, ET LegalWorld
Riju Ravindran, co-founder and former promoter of Think and Learn, which owns debt-ridden edtech firm Byju's, has moved insolvency tribunal NCLT for removal of GLAS Trust as the financial creditor and from its Committee of Creditors. In his petition, Ravindran has alleged that GLAS Trust has "fraudulently represented itself to be a financial creditor" and has requested the National Company Law Tribunal to direct it to "prove its authority to represent the creditors before it". Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles GLAS Trust, which is representing Byju's US-based creditor, has the authority to represent merely 17.38 per cent of the voting rights of the consortium of term loan providers, he to Ravindran, GLAS can take actions on behalf of lenders only if the action is authorised by lenders holding more than 50 per cent of the term Trust Company LLC, a US-based firm, is the trustee for lenders to which Byju's owes USD 1.2 has requested NCLT to "direct removal of GLAS Trust Company LLC from CoC of Think and Learn forthwith and to, consequently, set aside and declare all decisions taken by the GLAS Trust Company LLC, as a member, as nullity."The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Bengaluru bench of NCLT on an interim measure, Ravindran has also directed NCLT to "stay CIRP of Think and Learn, till the time GLAS proves it has the requisite authority of the qualified lenders under the Credit and Guaranty Agreement dated 24.11.2021 for taking any action under the said agreement."Ravindran has filed this application in the main petition filed by the cricket body BCCI, on whose plea Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the edtech further alleged that GLAS has "fraudulently represented" itself to be a financial creditor before NCLT and obtained several orders based on it."This fundamental fraud has been perpetrated upon this tribunal by GLAS by illegally claiming that it has the authority to represent lenders under the Credit and Guaranty Agreement dated 24.11.2021 without possessing the requisite mandate from 51 per cent of qualified lenders," it entire edifice of representation crumbles upon examination of the contractual disqualification mechanism that has been validly exercised by the company, resulting in the disqualification of 61.43 per cent of the term loan holders."This disqualification has reduced GLAS' actual authority to represent merely 17.38 per cent of the term loan, rendering every action taken by GLAS in these proceedings as ultra vires and void ab initio," it further alleged GLAS, fully cognizant of its lack of authority, has 'orchestrated' an elaborate conspiracy involving Ernst & Young (EY) and successive Resolution Professionals to manipulate the CIRP process and perpetuate its illegal control over Alpha Inc, a wholly-owned US subsidiary of Think and Learn, had availed a loan facility amounting to approximately USD 1.2 billion under a Credit and Guaranty Agreement on November 24, 2021 from a group of lenders. The agreement was for a period of five years with a maturity dated in November 2026 for the term loan under the GLAS issued a notice of default and sought to accelerate the term loan on March 2023 within 15 months of the Credit Agreement and 3.5 years prior to the maturity realising that certain lenders had stepped into the shoes of the initial investors in violation of the specific terms of the Credit Agreement, Think and Learn exercised its rights under the agreement to protect itself by issuing letter of disqualification on June 5, 2023, to Redwood to the petition, GLAS claims to be the administrative and collateral agent for the lenders under the Credit Trust, which had also filed insolvency plea, claimed that 72.2 per cent of the lenders consented to filing of the same."It is submitted that out of these 72.20 per cent, 61.43 per cent are disqualified lenders. Therefore, from the lenders who consented (or voted "yes"), only about 10.77 per cent are not disqualified lenders. The percentage of disqualified lenders who consented in proportion to non-disqualified lenders is 6.61 per cent. This would, perforce, mean that GLAS has the authority to represent only 17.38 per cent of the term loan," he said.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
