Coral India Finance & Housing Ltd Forensic Report - SOIC x StockScans Report

as of Sep 2026

Coral India Finance & Housing Ltd’s audited record shows a company with a long, unbroken history of clean audit opinions and a small, stable balance sheet. But the disclosures that come with those opinions repeatedly contradict themselves: the company says it has no related-party transactions while lending to entities tied to its managing director’s family, and says it has no pending legal cases while carrying a disputed VAT bill for over a decade. The governance structure also shows a promoter family that controls the board and its own pay, with one remuneration vote failing outright.

Key findings

  1. Undisclosed loans to managing director’s family entities Critical - Coral India lent ₹20.8 crore to Bezel Pharma and ₹2.5 crore to Noetic Finance, both controlled by the managing director’s family, while its FY2025-26 Board’s Report states “no materially significant related party transactions” and its Corporate Governance report states “no loans/advances in the nature of debt given to firms/companies in which Directors are interested”. The Bezel loan was approved by shareholders for up to ₹30 crore at 10% p.a., with Managing Director Navin Doshi and Non-Executive Director Meeta Sheth disclosed as members of Bezel Pharma. Bezel repaid ₹15 crore by March 31, 2023, leaving ₹5.8 crore outstanding as at March 31, 2024, while the Noetic loan of ₹2.5 crore was outstanding as at 31.03.2025.
  2. A decade-old disputed VAT liability, reported as “no pending cases” Major - Coral India reported “No pending legal cases against the company” in its Corporate Governance reports for FY2022-23 through FY2025-26. Yet the auditor’s CARO clause (vii) in each of those years discloses disputed Value Added Tax dues not deposited. The FY2020 audit report identifies the amount as 1.5 crore of disputed MVAT dues for FY 2010-11, pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Appeals, Mumbai.
  3. Promoter family controls the board and its own pay Major - A special resolution to pay ₹20,00,000 annual remuneration to Non-Executive Promoter Director Meeta Sheth failed at the August 30, 2024 AGM. She is the daughter of Chairman & Managing Director Navin Doshi, who received ₹48.00 lakh in both FY2023-24 and FY2024-25 under a service contract running to July 31, 2028. The promoter group holds 74.96% of the company, and a 2023 resolution re-appointing Mr. Doshi passed with only 0.7352% of outstanding shares voting in favour, with the promoter group casting zero votes.
  4. “Debt-free” claim coexists with bank overdrafts against its own deposits Major - Coral India states it is “debt-free” in its FY2025-26 Board’s Report and MD&A, and “no debt as at 31 March 2026” in its standalone notes. The same notes disclose “Borrowings from banks in form of overdraft against fixed deposits” as at 31 March 2026. The company’s FY2024-25 CARO clause (ix) states “no loans or borrowings from any lender during the year”.
  5. Operating cash flow is volatile and trails profit Minor - Cumulative operating cash flow of ₹81 crore covered only 0.56x of cumulative operating profit of ₹144 crore over the 10-year history through the latest period. CFO/PAT swung from 1.20x in FY23 to 0.24x in FY24, then recovered to 1.07x in FY25 and 1.11x in FY26. ROCE declined from 12.85% in FY24 to 9.59% in FY25 and 8.32% in FY26.
  6. Long-tenured auditor, no rotation until 2027 Minor - Statutory auditor Hasmukh Shah & Co. LLP has held the engagement since 2017 and was re-appointed for a second five-year term through 2027. The auditor’s second term concludes at the 33rd AGM in 2027, requiring a new appointment or rotation decision.
  7. A brief board-composition breach in 2020 Minor - From April 1, 2020 to July 16, 2020, the company had only 4 Directors instead of the required 6 under Regulation 17(1) of SEBI (LODR) for top 2000 listed entities. Compliance was achieved effective July 17, 2020.

What to watch

Bottom line: This is a small, conservatively-run balance sheet with a clean audit history and no signs of financial distress. The risk is not in the numbers themselves but in the gap between what the company says and what its own filings show: loans to family entities that the board says do not exist, a disputed tax bill that the board says is not there, and a “debt-free” label that sits beside bank overdrafts. The character of the risk is disclosure failure, not operational failure, so read the related-party note and the CARO annexure, not just the profit line, and watch whether the Bezel balance gets a repayment date.