IPO rush, block deals fuel two-fold jump in market fundraise
"The sharp rebound in equity
fund raising
this quarter is directly tied to the recovery in secondary market sentiment," said Bhavesh Shah, managing director and head of investment banking at Equirus Capital.
IPOs also reported renewed rigour in issuance. Money raised through this route increased by 88.6% sequentially to ₹29,652 crore. Also, funds through rights issue jumped fourfold to ₹7,644 crore by similar comparison, reflecting companies' eagerness to shore up balance sheets through shareholder-backed offerings.
Agencies
Underlying this uptick was a marked improvement in investor sentiment. The
BSE Sensex
rallied nearly 10% in the April-June period, buoyed by robust foreign and domestic inflows. This was in comparison with the 1.4% drop in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Foreign portfolio investors, who withdrew ₹1.2 lakh crore in January-March 2025, flipped to net buyers, pouring in ₹38,673 crore during April-June, according to NSDL data.
"IPO investors are typically active in the secondary market as well. So, when markets are underperforming, it not only affects their existing portfolios but also dampens their appetite for new investments," said Shah. He expects the current momentum in fund raising to continue as long as the secondary market remains stable and domestic inflows stay strong,
Though the total transaction value of B&B deals improved sequentially, their number fell to 3,003 in the June quarter from 3,461 in the previous quarter reflecting higher average size per deal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India expands portfolio with Bentley luxury cars
Photo: Bentley Flying Spur Check Offers Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited (SAVWIPL) announced on Monday that it has extended its brand portfolio by adding Bentley, the legendary British car company. Bentley has been added as the sixth marque under the Group's umbrella in India. Starting this month, SAVWIPL has become the exclusive importer, distributor and service provider for the Bentley luxury vehicles in India. Until now, Bentley operated in India through its partnership with Exclusive Motors. Bentley India's operations will be overseen by Abbey Thomas, the newly appointed Brand Director. Thomas will be responsible for leading the brand's operations and growth in the Indian market. Moreover, Bentley India is set to expand its presence with the introduction of three new dealer partners in key metropolitan cities—beginning with Bengaluru and Mumbai, followed by New Delhi. These upcoming showrooms will cater to India's ultra-high-net-worth clientele, offering Bentley's renowned luxury car models. Commenting on the entry of Bentley brand to the SAVWIPL, Piyush Arora, Managing Director and CEO of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India, said that the country's appetite for luxury vehicles is growing rapidly. 'Welcoming Bentley into the SAVWIPL family is a proud milestone that completes our portfolio — from the precision of German engineering to the timeless elegance and unmatched performance of British craftsmanship. Additionally, Abbey's deep understanding of the Indian market makes him the ideal leader to steer Bentley India toward new milestones," Arora said. Get insights into Upcoming Cars In India, Electric Vehicles, Upcoming Bikes in India and cutting-edge technology transforming the automotive landscape. First Published Date: 07 Jul 2025, 20:26 PM IST
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Jane Street to contest SEBI's manipulation charges: Reports
Jane Street rejects allegations Jane Street vs SEBI Live Events Pushback on exchange claims (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Securities and Exchange Board ( SEBI ) has accused Jane Street , one of Wall Street's biggest trading firms, of running what it calls 'an intentional, well planned, and sinister scheme' to distort the country's markets. The Financial Times reported the regulator's findings on Monday. Reuters has not verified this Friday, SEBI barred Jane Street from trading in India and ordered it to return over 550 million dollars of what it describes as illegal profit. The ban follows allegations that Jane Street moved Indian bank stocks in ways that triggered large payouts on connected Street has told staff it will fight the ban. In a memo sent on Sunday to around 3,000 employees, senior management wrote they were 'beyond disappointed' by SEBI's 'extremely inflammatory' accusations.'It's deeply upsetting to see the firm mischaracterised this way,' said the memo, quoted by the Financial Times. 'We take pride in the role we serve in markets around the world, and it's painful to have our firm's reputation tarnished by a report based on so many erroneous or unsupported assertions.'Jane Street's trouble with SEBI links back to a lawsuit it filed last year against Millennium Management and two former traders who left for the hedge fund. In that case, Jane Street claimed the traders stole a valuable strategy that turned out to centre on Indian options. SEBI's probe zoomed in on Jane Street's trades linked to the BANKNIFTY index, which tracks India's major banking are now checking other parts of India's markets too. Jane Street has argued that the trades flagged by SEBI were nothing more than 'basic arbitrage trading', a normal practice in the order also says Jane Street ignored warnings from local stock exchanges. The firm disputes this point strongly. In the same memo to staff, Jane Street said the regulator used 'a metric for market impact and trading aggressiveness which seems disconnected from actual market dynamics'.The memo added that when exchanges first raised concerns, the firm 'immediately turned off its trading until we could better understand the exchanges' concerns' and later changed its approach to meet their 'preferences'.'Once again, we left this process feeling that we had reached an understanding of the concerns and reflected them in modifications to our trading behaviour,' the memo said. 'Since February, we have made ongoing efforts to communicate with SEBI and have been consistently rebuffed.'Jane Street has 21 days to object to SEBI's order and ask for a hearing. The firm says it is working on a detailed response and plans to fight the ban in the meantime, India's regulators say they may widen the investigation into other trades and instruments connected to the firm. Jane Street's future in one of Asia's biggest markets now hangs on how this fight plays out.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Delhi High Court rejects Celebi's plea against revoked security permit
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed Turkey-based company Çelebi Airport Services Private Limited's plea challenging the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance. The court said that 'once national security considerations are found to exist, it was not for the Court to 'second guess' the same.' 'As per settled law, once national security considerations are found to exist, on the basis of which the security clearance has been cancelled/revoked, it is not for the Court to 'second guess' the same,' the order said. Justice Sachin Datta upheld the revocation of security clearance of the Turkey-based firm by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) in the interest of national security. On perusal of the relevant information, it transpires that there are compelling national security considerations involved, which impelled the Indian government to revoke the security clearance, the court said. 'While it would not be appropriate for this Court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict,' the order said. The court further noted that impelling geopolitical considerations, impinging upon the safety of the country, were also involved. '…the executive wing and not the judicial wing has the knowledge of India's geopolitical relationships to assess if an action is in the interest of India's national security,' the order stated. There was a considerable body of judicial dicta to the effect that the State is well within its rights to take pre-emptive measures to protect and preserve national security, the single-judge bench of the High Court said. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the precondition for enjoyment of all other rights. The State/respondents are indeed justified in taking prompt and definitive action so as to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised,' the court said. In its petition to the Delhi High Court, Çelebi Airport Services had said that public perception cannot be grounds for revocation of security clearance. The ground-handling company also submitted that it had been given no reason or opportunity for a hearing. 'We have been carrying the operations for 17 years without blemish. Then we received a letter on May 15 cancelling the security clearance. We were given no reason and no opportunity for hearing. It is because of public perception that the shareholding of the company is of Turkish nationals. But public perception cannot be grounds (for revocation of security clearance). There are 14,000 employees working. The entire business goes for a toss,' Çelebi's lawyers had told the court. Çelebi had also argued that the Indian government's decision to revoke its security clearance was 'arbitrary and devoid of specific reasons.' The Ministry of Civil Aviation, acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), withdrew Çelebi's clearance on 15 May 2025, invoking national security grounds. The move came amid mounting diplomatic tensions after Turkey supported Pakistan during hostilities involving Operation Sindoor. At least seven airports in the country cancelled the services of Çelebi and its subsidiaries. Çelebi challenged the contract cancellations before the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Gujarat, besides challenging the security revocation before the Delhi High Court. While the pleas are pending in the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, the Madras High Court had in June granted interim protection to Çelebi Ground Services Chennai under Section 9 (interim protection to parties) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Background Çelebi, a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Turkish parent company Çelebi Aviation Holding, argued that the government's order lacked any prior notice or opportunity to respond. The company described the justification as 'vague' and 'unsubstantiated,' asserting that such actions jeopardise foreign investor confidence and threaten the livelihoods of Indian employees. 'Technically, it's an Indian company. There has to be a reasonable cause. We were not given prior notice,' Çelebi told the court. The company also clarified that while it has Turkish ownership, operational and managerial control of its Indian entity is handled by an India-based team, and that it has maintained a clean track record for over a decade at major airports. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, expressed national security concerns over the firm's presence, and said, 'The enemy can try 10 times and succeed once; a country has to succeed all the time.' 'In cases of civil aviation and national security, there cannot be a doctrine of proportionality,' he added. He also submitted that the individuals employed by the company in question, who are deployed at airports, have access to every corner of the airport as well as the aircraft. 'The government had inputs that it would be hazardous in this scenario, in which the country is in, to leave this activity in the hands of this company,' he said. Mehta maintained that the revocation was rooted in concerns over national security under the Aircraft Security Rules, particularly Rule 12. Rule 12 of the Indian Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2023, grants the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) the power to suspend or cancel security clearances and security programmes. Following the revocation of clearance, Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) also terminated its contracts with Çelebi, and in Mumbai, Indothai, a domestic operator, was brought in to take over the firm's ground-handling services.
