Antony Waste Handling Cell Ltd — Q1 FY27 earnings call
Summary generated by AI from the official transcript Antony Waste Handling Cell Ltd filed with BSE on 17 Aug 2026. Every statement cites a verbatim quote from that document — open any citation to read it. This is a record of what management said, not a recommendation. How we check these summaries
The short read
Antony Waste Handling Cell reported Q1 FY27 revenue growth of 6% year-on-year to Rs 269 crores, while EBITDA fell 27% year-on-year to Rs 45 crores with margin compressing to 16.8% due to higher operating expenses, employee costs, and a one-time transportation cost deferral. Management described a tragic incident at its PCMC Waste-to-Energy facility in July involving a legacy waste mound collapse that killed nine people, leading to a temporary suspension of WtE operations and an expected impairment charge of Rs 22-24 crores. The company also disclosed refinancing of the Antony Lara Renewable Energy term loan from 10.25% to 8.25% and a new Rs 243 crore, 5-year contract win from the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
Numbers mentioned
Revenue: ₹ 269 crores (Q1 FY27)
p. 4
“we delivered healthy year-on-year revenue growth of 6%, reaching ₹ 269 crores, driven by higher volumes across our project sites and supported by contractual tariff linked escalation”
Jose Jacob, page 4 of the filed PDF · View the filing
EBITDA: ₹ 45 crores (Q1 FY27)
p. 6
“The EBITDA came in at ₹ 45 crores, which is down 27% year-on-year and 33% sequentially with EBITDA margin at 16.8% compared to 24.4% in Q1 FY26 and 22.8% in Q4 FY26.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
PAT: ₹ 0.7 crores (Q1 FY27)
p. 6
“PAT for the quarter stood at ₹ 0.7 crores, down sharply from ₹23 crores in the same period last year, further impacted by a one-time expense of ₹7 crores related to the prepayment of the Antony Lara Renewable Energy term loan.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Gross debt: ₹435 crores (as of June 2026)
p. 6
“On the balance sheet, as of June 2026, gross debt stood at approximately ₹435 crores with cash and bank balances of around ₹111 crores, translating to a net debt of approximately ₹324 crores and a net debt-to-equity ratio of 0.4x.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
C&T revenue: ₹ 156 crores (Q1 FY27)
p. 5
“our C&T business delivered healthy growth with revenue up by 10% year-on-year to ₹ 156 crores, while the processing segment grew 3% year-on-year to ₹ 75 crores”
Mahendra Ananthula, page 5 of the filed PDF · View the filing
RDF sales: approximately 40,000 tons, down around 28% year-on-year (Q1 FY27)
p. 5
“RDF sales stood at approximately 40,000 tons, down around 28% year-on-year.”
Mahendra Ananthula, page 5 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Total tonnage: approximately 1.4 million tons (Q1FY27)
p. 5
“Total tonnage for Q1FY27 came in at approximately 1.4 million tons, a 5% increase over the previous year.”
Mahendra Ananthula, page 5 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Weighted average cost of debt: approximately 10.1% (Q1 FY27)
p. 6
“Our weighted average cost of debt stood at approximately 10.1%, a figure we expect to trend lower as Lara Renewable refinancing benefit fully reflects going forward.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
DSOs: 114 days (Q1 FY27)
p. 6
“The DSOs remained stable at 114 days, underscoring the disciplined working capital management even through a cost heavy quarter.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Employee costs as % of revenue: 34% (Q1 FY27)
p. 6
“employee costs, which rose 18% year-on-year and now represents 34% of our revenue versus 30% a year ago”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Expected impairment charge: ₹ 22 crores to ₹ 24 crores
p. 6
“Based on our current assessment, we expect an impairment charge in the range of around ₹ 22 crores to ₹ 24 crores, which we will treat as an exceptional extraordinary item separate from our core operating performance.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
What management said it would do
A record of statements made on the call, in the words management used. Parakho does not forecast, endorse or assess them, and their presence here is not a view on whether they will happen.
WtE plant restart — first week of October · Q2/Q3 FY27
stated firmly by N.G. Subramanian
p. 7
“The WtE plant is expected back by first week of October.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 7 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Greater Noida contract revenue contribution — approximately ₹ 46 crores in its first year · first year, commencing Q3 FY27
stated firmly by Jose Jacob
p. 4
“Expected to commence in Q3 FY27 and contribute approximately ₹ 46 crores in revenue in its first year.”
Jose Jacob, page 4 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Processing/C&T portfolio mix — 50-50 kind of portfolio
stated as an aspiration by Mahendra Ananthula
p. 11
“We are actually moving towards 50-50 kind of portfolio, and that's our target.”
Mahendra Ananthula, page 11 of the filed PDF · View the filing
EBITDA margin normalization — historic levels · FY28
stated conditionally by N.G. Subramanian
p. 13
“It should be because if you look at the labour cost as a percentage of revenue, historically, it has been in the range of around 30% to 31%.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 13 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Atkoli project ramp-up — 600 to 800 tons per day · Q3 or Q4 FY27
stated firmly by N.G. Subramanian
p. 16
“The Atkoli project that we have got in Thane processing will add another 600 to 800 tons per day, but that's not for the full year.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 16 of the filed PDF · View the filing
BMC contract volume addition — around 1,500 tons per day
stated firmly by N.G. Subramanian
p. 16
“For example, the BMC contract by itself will add around 1,500 tons per day.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 16 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Q&A highlights
Management's answers to analyst questions, in Parakho's words rather than a transcript. Each row names who answered and carries the verbatim quote it was drawn from.
MRF and composting resumed, WtE plant expected back by early October with fixed costs of Rs 2.5-3 crore per month in the interim.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Ronak Shah: What is the status of WtE operations under regulatory review and near-term revenue impact?
p. 7
“The WtE plant is expected back by first week of October. During this period, the fixed cost incurred would be in the range of around ₹2.5 crores to ₹3 crore per month for us.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 7 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Processing softness was due to completion of the CIDCO bio-mining contract; margin pressure from transportation and labour costs expected to ease in H2.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Ronak Shah: What caused the moderation in processing revenue and what is the margin outlook given inflation?
p. 7
“we are seeing a moderation in the processing content in Q1”
N.G. Subramanian, page 7 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Yes, it was a closure cost tied to disposal of inert material at the end of the CIDCO contract and will not repeat.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Manish Agarwal: Was the Rs 10 crore incremental transportation cost a one-time item related to CIDCO bio-mining closure?
p. 9
“So yes, to answer your question, this is not a repetitive line item for you.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 9 of the filed PDF · View the filing
The refinanced amount was Rs 140 crores with a 15-year tenure and a net benefit of Rs 14 crores despite the prepayment charge.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Manish Agarwal: What is the payback period on the loan refinancing given the prepayment cost?
p. 10
“Sir, we are talking about the tenure is now extended to 15 years and we're having a net benefit of ₹14 crores despite paying the ₹6 crores of prepayment charge.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 10 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Gross borrowing increased by about Rs 22 crores, driven by the AP WtE project and the new BMC contract.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Ketan Chheda: Has borrowing increased compared to Q4, and towards what purpose?
p. 12
“Compared to Q4, my total borrowing has increased by around ₹22 crores at a gross level.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 12 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Partly anticipated due to new project headcount, but the scale from the Labour Code-driven actuarial restatement was a surprise.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Ketan Chheda: Was the employee cost spike anticipated for this quarter?
p. 13
“It was not completely anticipated. There were 2 factors that led to it.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 13 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Management said waste management should be evaluated annually rather than quarterly since costs like labour, fuel and repairs are volatile and beyond the company's control in the short term.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Nitesh: Why does the company keep reporting unexpected surprises each quarter, citing past examples like vehicle scrapping and margin guidance misses?
p. 14
“Looking at the company on a quarterly performance, it will be very difficult to target that.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 14 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Management clarified it relates to structural damage assessment by OEM suppliers, not a compliance failure, with cost estimates to follow in Q2.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Nitesh: Is there a compliance issue at the WtE plant flagged by auditors?
p. 15
“So the compliance is not on the part of it. It's basically once there is a certain structural damage to the plant, which needs to be reviewed by the OEM suppliers.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 15 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Management does not expect the project to be relocated, citing lack of alternative sites and Supreme Court's prior stance, though technology changes toward CBG/WtE could occur.
Answered by Mahendra Ananthula
Asked by Nitesh: Could an adverse Supreme Court ruling on the joint petition affect the Kanjurmarg plant?
p. 15
“I don't think there is anything which can go wrong for the simple reason that Supreme Court in the last hearing has said that before we take any action, we would like to see the practicality of BMC shifting the project to some other location or finding an alternate source.”
Mahendra Ananthula, page 15 of the filed PDF · View the filing
No, it was tied to the completed CIDCO bio-mining contract and will not repeat.
Answered by N.G. Subramanian
Asked by Neerav Dalal: Will the Rs 10 crore incremental cost recur in coming quarters?
p. 16
“we don't see any of it getting repeated in the current quarter because that was related to the CIDCO bio-mining and we have completed with the contract”
N.G. Subramanian, page 16 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Risks flagged
Structural damage assessment and potential impairment at the WtE facility following the monsoon-related incident
p. 6
“This has resulted in damage to a portion of the project assets.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Uncertainty over insurance recovery for the WtE impairment estimate
p. 6
“I would also like to note that this estimate does not yet factor any recovery we expect from insurance claims, which could offset part of this impact.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 6 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Rising input costs including fuel, repairs, and additives due to volatility and geopolitical factors
p. 14
“I mean the cost of repairs and maintenance, the cost of additives over the last 3 quarters has spiked through the roof.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 14 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Unanticipated labour cost increases from a state government DA rate revision and Labour Code changes
p. 13
“the quantification due to the new Labour Code, that was the surprise item for us”
N.G. Subramanian, page 13 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Margin pressure from higher repairs and maintenance costs and ageing contracts in the Collection and Transport business
p. 8
“On the Collection and Transport business, yes, because of higher repairs and maintenance costs and a few of our contracts getting old, we see some margin pressure coming in.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 8 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Timing mismatch between cost increases and contractual escalation recovery
p. 13
“Bulk of it would be a part of the escalation adjustment as per the tender condition, but that will be a timing mismatch because we get an annual escalation and the cost will be incurred today.”
N.G. Subramanian, page 13 of the filed PDF · View the filing
Generated by claude-sonnet-5. Source: the transcript as filed with BSE. We link to the exchange's copy; we do not host transcripts. Parakho is a data and screening tool, not an investment adviser — nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell or hold.