Depth bar: Band B visit dossier (~2,000–3,500 words). [~] for estimates. No invented bills or court outcomes.

1. Company overview & snapshot

1.1 Legal identity & corporate structure

Mahavir Die Casters Pvt Ltd (CIN commonly cited U29299HR1991PTC031331) — private company incorporated 04 Jul 1991, ROC Haryana. Long-running independent HPDC player. Public aggregator board views (2024–25) show a leadership transition: Karan Gupta appointed Managing Director (~10 Jun 2024); Sumit Gupta Director; Manekk Jain listed historically as MD/Director with tenure ending ~Feb/Mar 2025 on LinkedIn/MCA aggregators; Shanti Lal Jain and Madhu Jain as directors (founding generation). Registered/operating addresses appear across Faridabad Sector 24 and Manesar/Binola-area highway listings in some MCA dumps — confirm which address is the live HQ and which entity holds each HT account before contracts.

Open charges historically large (₹228 Cr [] in lead research) — bank-financed scale, cash-flow sensitivity possible. Revenue ₹321 Cr FY2024 []; employees 296–300 [].

1.2 What they make & where money comes from

High-pressure aluminium die cast components, CNC machining, painting, robotic deburring, tool room — marketed as one of North India’s larger independent HPDC capacities at 18,000 T/year [] across four plants (Faridabad ×2, Manesar ×2 [~]). Automotive OEM/Tier customers (specific names: confirm before use). Paint line public materials mention SCADA on paint kitchen/booths in some site copy — useful digital hook, not proof of plantwide energy EMS.

1.3 Plants, addresses & footprint

Visit week: Sector 24 first. Cross-site benchmarking is the expansion story after one plant proves.

1.4 Leadership & CRM map

Critical CRM risk: campaign user briefing lists MD Manekk Jain / CEO Shanti Lal Jain; MCA aggregators and LinkedIn suggest Karan Gupta as current MD and Manekk as former. Reception verify before any named email.

Generic: info@mahavirdiecasters.com. Do not invent karan.gupta@… in mailto-critical first backtick unless confirmed — kit uses info@ as primary safe email.

1.5 Recent news (24 months) & timing for Stamped

Leadership change is the main “news.” Capacity/CAGR (12% [] in older notes) implies growing complexity. Visit timing: Utso in Faridabad next week; light peer: active Stamped deal at LNM Auto Sector 59. Open as “which plant leaks power” only after title clarity.

2. Energy profile

DISCOM / supply (name early): Faridabad plants → DHBVN. Manesar units → confirm DISCOM/feeder (often still Haryana industrial, but verify). Never assume one group invoice.

2.1 Bill band, tariff & demand

Corrected estimate (Aug 2026 — kVA/meter-based): ₹7–12L/month [~] (~2 MVA Faridabad) · Band B · confidence High · ₹30L+ gate: No · visit action: Qualify config / multi-meter. Canonical: bill-estimates-corrected-aug2026.md.

Four HPDC plants + CNC + paint + robotics at ~₹321 Cr scale → Faridabad 2 MVA-scale connection: ₹7–12 lakh/month [] — Band B unless multiple meters / expanded load (kVA/meter-corrected Aug 2026). Qualify with two DHBVN bills for the Sector 24 (or chosen) connection: kWh, MD, CMD, PF, tariff, ToD, paint-line share, whether Manesar is separate.

2.2 Generation, fuel & renewables

No public captive/solar/OA map found in review. Paint and die cast both drive electricity; any gas ovens need fuel split. DG possible but unconfirmed publicly.

2.3 EnMS, PAT, ISO, BRSR

IATF/ISO/TS quality stack historically. Paint line SCADA mentioned on company materials. No ISO 50001 / PAT / BRSR found. Quality maturity ≠ energy maturity.

2.4 Likely ₹ leak categories (hypothesis)

MD overlap at HPDC startup across cells; compressor and cooling baseload; paint booth/kitchen schedule vs production; idle utilities between shifts; cross-plant ₹/ton variance with no shared view; PF issues on large motor loads. Hypotheses only.

3. Operations, equipment & digital stack

3.1 Process flow & critical loads

Die cast → trim/machine → paint/deburr → inspect/dispatch. Critical loads: HPDC presses/hydraulics, melting/holding if on site, CNC, paint pretreatment/booths/ovens, compressors, ETP, robotics. Paint SCADA may expose process timers — ask if energy tags exist.

3.2 Shifts, seasonality, production pattern

Multi-shift HPDC supplier pattern [~]. OEM calendars drive peaks. Confirm which plant is capacity-constrained vs under-utilised — under-utilised plants often hide high fixed utility baseload.

3.3 Automation, metering, SCADA/EMS/DCS

Robotic deburring + paint SCADA = pockets of digital. Plantwide EMS unlikely public. Path A: DHBVN bills + main meters + paint SCADA read-only if allowed + any feeder meters.

3.4 Capex / tech projects affecting energy

Ongoing capacity growth and possible leadership-driven tech refresh. Any new press line resets baseline — document.

4. Stamped Energy fit analysis

4.1 ICP scorecard

Intensity: pass. Multi-plant: pass. Geography: pass (DHBVN Faridabad). Bill ≥ ₹30L: Fail on single Faridabad meter [~] — ₹7–12L — qualify multi-meter. Decision access: caution — leadership verify. Fit score 9/10 with CRM caveat.

4.2 Fit score rationale

9/10 for capacity + four plants + process stack. Deduction for title ambiguity and unconfirmed plant-level bill. Wrong-person email burns the visit.

4.3 Wedge (parser-critical)

The strongest wedge is: verify the current MD at reception, pick one Faridabad DHBVN HPDC plant for a 60-Day Proof Run, expose MD/compressor/paint-support waste as assigned ₹ actions verified with evidence, then use the result to compare the other three plants — mentioning LNM Sector 59 only as a light local peer.

4.4 Objections & competitors

Family/board transition → slow tech buy; keep ask tiny. “Paint already has SCADA” → energy attribution still missing. “Four plants too big” → one plant first. Cash sensitivity from charges → Proof Run fixed fee framing, not vague SaaS. OEM dashboards ≠ bill verification.

4.5 Pilot design

Site: Sector 24 Faridabad HT account. Offer: 60-Day Proof Run. Success: one named action + ledger verification. Kill: cannot identify decision maker; bill below gate; no data path. Rollout: second Faridabad → Manesar with honest DISCOM labelling.

5. Before you reach out

5.1 Discovery checklist

• Reception: who is MD today?
• Two DHBVN bills for chosen plant
• Confirm 4-plant map + which visit plant
• Electrical HOD name
• Paint SCADA access willingness
• MD pain vs compressor vs paint ranking
• Manesar DISCOM identity
• LNM peer mention OK?
• Open charges / CFO sensitivity?
• Preferred channel: info@ vs LinkedIn Manekk vs Karan
• Shift roster
• Safety rules for press stagger

5.2 Do not lead with

• Named “Dear Manekk” or “Dear Karan” until verified
• Dashboard/AI/ESG-first
• “Next bill” as hero — use verified with evidence
• Instant four-plant rollout
• Guaranteed 15–20% before baseline

5.3 Opening hooks

• “I’m in Faridabad next week — which of your four HPDC plants should we prove first on one DHBVN bill?”
• “We’re already with LNM nearby; for Mahavir I’d start Sector 24 only.”

6. Risks, flags, controversies & sources

6.1 Integrity / controversy / regulatory (search explicitly)

Searches: Mahavir Die Casters controversy / lawsuit / NGT / fraud / labour — no substantiated hits in reviewed public sources (Aug 2026). Pre-contract MCA/PCB checks still required. Leadership change is operational risk, not integrity allegation.

6.2 Data quality flags

• MD identity conflict (Manekk vs Karan)
• Website domains mahavirdiecasters.com vs mahavircasters.com appear in search — confirm canonical site
• Revenue/employee third-party only
• Bill band inferred
• CIN address dumps may show Binola/Gurugram — entity/address collision risk

6.3 Sources consulted

• https://www.mahavirdiecasters.com / related castings sites
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/manekk-jain-8975b455
• MCA aggregator pages (QorpIQ / TheCompanyCheck director tables)
• leads/auto-components/lead-research-auto-component-NCR-2026-06.md
• Prior July kit/research 05-mahavir-die-casters
• Visit context: Faridabad trip + LNM deal (internal)

6.4 Leadership verification script (mandatory before named outreach)

At reception or on the first phone connect, ask neutrally: “Who is the Managing Director I should address for a plant energy project — and who owns the Faridabad electricity bills?” Do not lead with Manekk or Karan. If they name Karan Gupta, pivot the kit language to him and keep Manekk/Shanti Lal as secondary. If they name Manekk or Shanti Lal, proceed with the user-briefed route and treat MCA aggregator MD flags as stale until proven. Wrong-name email is the fastest way to waste the Faridabad visit slot.

Once the sponsor is clear, ask for the electrical/utilities head across the four plants. At ~300 people and four sites, someone owns HT accounts even if their LinkedIn title is “maintenance” rather than “energy manager.” That person is who walks Sector 24 with you.

6.5 Four-plant Proof Run design (honest sequencing)

Day 0–7: pick Sector 24 (or whichever Faridabad plant has the cleanest DHBVN boundary and a willing electrical owner). Collect two bills, shift roster, and whether paint SCADA can export timers read-only. Day 8–30: identify one lever — startup MD overlap, compressor baseload, or paint-support idle — assign it, run it under production rules. Day 31–60: show the ₹ effect verified with evidence on Stamped’s stack; optional invoice confirm. Only then propose a second Faridabad plant compare. Manesar comes third because geography and possibly feeder/DISCOM details differ. Do not sell “four plants on one screen” in the first meeting.

Cash-flow note: older research flagged large open charges [~]. Frame the Proof Run as fixed-fee verification with kill criteria, not a multi-year platform commitment. Against OEM price-downs, even a small ₹/casting gap across plants is the P&L language Shanti Lal’s generation understands.

6.6 Research conclusion

Mahavir remains a 9/10 process fit and a CRM landmine until MD title is verified live. Visit week value is high if Sector 24 is close on the same day as Oswal Sector 25. Use LNM only as a light peer; Mahavir’s scale story is its own.

6.7 Call-prep facts to keep on one page

• Fit 9/10 · HPDC ~18k T/yr · 4 plants · Faridabad DHBVN first
• Bill: ₹7–12L [~] on ~2 MVA Faridabad connection — Band B unless bills surprise; do not pitch Band A on revenue alone
• Champion: verify MD live; kit defaults Manekk + info@; MCA also shows Karan Gupta MD
• Offer: 60-Day Proof Run · proof: verified with evidence
• Local peer: LNM Sector 59 (light only)
• Same-day geography tip: Sector 24 sits near Sector 25 Oswal — batch if calendars allow
• Paint SCADA is a data hook, not proof they already solve energy attribution
• Kill criteria: no decision maker, no bill copies, no intervention owner, or metallurgy veto with no alternate lever

Keep the first meeting under 30 minutes. The goal is a named electrical owner and two invoices, not a four-plant architecture workshop. If the board is mid-transition, offer to return after they confirm who owns plant P&L for utilities — better than forcing a half-interested sponsor into a Proof Run that dies at day 20.

Public capacity claims (18,000 T/yr []) and four-plant maps should be treated as discovery prompts. Ask which plants ran the most tonnage in the last two billing months and whether paint ran with or against casting peaks. That pairing often explains MD better than nameplate tonnage. If Manesar bills arrive late or under a different cost centre, keep them out of the first Proof Run scope even if leadership wants “all four.” A clean Faridabad DHBVN win beats a muddy multi-site pilot that cannot attribute ₹. When in doubt, write the pilot boundary on the whiteboard before leaving the plant.

Visit-week bottom line: verify the MD, collect two DHBVN bills for one Faridabad plant, and leave with a named electrical owner for a 60-Day Proof Run before talking Manesar.