Latest Legal News

Trilegal, CAM, SAM, Khaitan and JSA dominate India’s IPO market in 2024–25

Rankings based on IPO mandates (Apr 2024–Mar 2025) from DRHPs, RoC filings and law firm-reported banker roles.

Bar & Bench

India’s capital markets in FY 2024–25 saw record IPO activity despite global volatility. Law firms played a critical role in steering issuers and bankers through SEBI’s tighter disclosure rules and faster timelines.

Table 1

Five firms—Trilegal, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Khaitan & Co,and JSA—accounted for 56% of all mandates, with Trilegal leading with 52 mandates—27 issuer-side and 25 on banker-side. This even split reflects a conscious strategy to build credibility on both sides of the market. The firm has advised issuers ranging from traditional manufacturing to new-age technology players, while simultaneously becoming a preferred counsel for leading book-running lead managers (Bankers).

Managing Partners Nishant Parikh and Sridhar Gorthi attributed the success to institutional discipline: “We’ve built a capital markets practice trusted by issuers, promoters, investors, and banks alike. Our balanced mix of mandates reflects deliberate choices around team structure, institutional processes, and a commercially minded, solutions-oriented approach.”

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM) handled 44 mandates in FY 2024-25—23 issuer-side and 21 on banker-side. Its positioning reflects both long-standing dominance and adaptability. The firm worked on some of the year’s largest IPOs, including HDB Financial (₹12,500 crore), Swiggy (₹11,327 crore), Vishal Mega Mart (₹8,000 crore), and Bajaj Housing Finance (₹6,560 crore).

Managing Partner Cyril Shroff said: “We have been clear leaders in the Capital Markets arena for nearly 30 years. We have worked on transactions like the TCS IPO, LIC IPO, and the recent Hyundai IPO—transactions that have defined the growth of our regulator and markets.”

Cyril Shroff

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) recorded 31 mandates, with an overwhelming weight towards issuers, comprising 22 mandates and 9 banker-side roles. This skew reflects the firm’s strong positioning as a go-to advisor for technology companies, private equity-backed businesses, and multinational conglomerates navigating complex IPO processes.

Prashant Gupta, Head of Capital Markets, explained this focus: “In the last 12–15 months, a significant number of our clients have been new age technology-driven companies, PE-owned companies, and multinational conglomerates. These are the more complex deals, and we believe this is where we add the most value as a law firm, with partner-led deals.”

Prashant Gupta, Head of Capital Markets

Khaitan & Co worked on 26 mandates, with 16 issuer-side and 10 banker-side roles. This distribution showcased the firm’s unique ability to maintain strong positions with both promoters and underwriters. Its client base ranged from fintech and e-commerce companies to traditional industrial players, while its work with banks reinforced its credibility on regulatory and diligence-heavy mandates.

Partner Abhimanyu Bhattacharya pointed to this balance as a deliberate advantage: “The firm also has a strong history of representing investment banks on various capital markets transactions. It is one of the few firms that has strong credentials in representing both issuers and investment banks. We would like to be the firm of choice for both.”

Abhimanyu Bhattacharya

JSA worked on 21 mandates, with a notable tilt toward bankers: 18 mandates involved BRLMs and only 3 involved issuers. This banker-heavy profile reflects its reputation as one of the most trusted advisors to underwriters in India, providing guidance on disclosure standards, diligence, and liability protection.

Partner Madhurima Mukherjee Saha candidly observed: “I don’t think it’s a considered strategy to represent one side over the other … Honestly, till this came up, we always felt that this ratio was well-balanced.”

Even with fewer company-side mandates, JSA’s issuer work was significant, including advising NTPC Green Energy on its ₹10,000 crore IPO.

Madhurima Mukherjee Saha

Data on team composition shows significant variations among the leading firms in India’s capital markets space.

  • Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM) has the largest dedicated team with 20 partners, 105 associates, and a total of 125 lawyers.

  • Khaitan & Co follows with 16 partners, 83 associates, and 99 lawyers in total.

  • Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) has 11 partners and 69 associates, with a total strength of 80 lawyers.

  • Trilegal operates with 8 partners, 52 associates, and a total of 60 lawyers.

  • JSA has 8 partners, 47 associates, and 55 lawyers in total.

Table 2 - Capital Markets team at Top 5 Law Firms

Among mid-tier players, Crawford Bayley & Co (17 mandates) continues to be a strong contender, leveraging its deep presence in Mumbai. AZB & Partners (14) and S&R Associates (14) remained balanced in their issuer and banker mandates. Bharucha & Partners (12) and Vidhigya Associates (8) completed the top ten, reflecting increasing competition among smaller but specialised outfits in IPO advisory work.

The rankings are based on DRHP mandates filed between between April 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025. Company-side mandates were identified from draft red herring prospectuses (DRHPs) filed with SEBI and final offer documents with the Registrar of Companies, while banker-side mandates were provided directly by law firms, as these are not disclosed in offer documents. Each mandate is counted once, even where multiple firms were appointed.

Download

IPO - Law Firms for Issuer and Bankers in 2025.pdf
Preview

Delhi High Court places trial judge under suspension, initiates disciplinary proceedings

Supreme Court questions P&H High Court for delay in publishing order, directs probe into backdated order

Article 21 must extend to preservation of ecological conditions essential for life: Justice Surya Kant

Recipe for trouble: Delhi court restrains FoodInfotech from copying FoodTechBiz's content

Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court's strictures, adverse remarks against judicial officer

SCROLL FOR NEXT