About · Site
Er. Manoj Kumar: An Independent Formulation Practice Since 2010
Lubechem Consultant is an independent grease and lubricant formulation practice in New Delhi, founded in 2010 by Er. Manoj Kumar, a chemical engineer. It is not a store, not an additive-house desk, and not a certificate you can buy.
Direct answer
Lubechem Consultant was founded in 2010 in New Delhi by Er. Manoj Kumar, a chemical engineer who still leads formulation engagements. The practice is independent of Lubrizol, Afton, Infineum and Chevron Oronite in the only way that matters: it is not paid to place their packages, and it builds from the duty and the components the brief allows. It is not a lubricant store.
- The verifiable biography is short: chemical engineer, New Delhi, practice founded in 2010.
- The About page carries the later timeline. This article does not add awards, client counts or licences.
- CEO-led means the founder reviews the formula, the failed trials and the SOP, not a sales handoff.
- Independence is a process: NDA first, no house quota, ownership only in the contract.
- The practice is wrong for buyers who want a drum this week or a logo they have not earned.
2010–2026 timeline (grease division, UAE, annual R&D, EV/bio/H1)
The biography a buyer can check is on the About page, and it should stay checkable. Er. Manoj Kumar is a chemical engineer. He established Lubechem Consultant in New Delhi in 2010 as an independent formulation practice for blenders, not as a trading counter for finished drums. That is the fact this article is willing to rest on.
The same About page publishes a later timeline in the company’s own words: a grease and additive practice from 2013, a first international engagement in 2016 described there as work for a UAE blender, an annual R&D partnership model from 2019, and specialty areas added in 2024–26 covering EV fluids, bio-lubricants, NSF H1 and RDSO railway grease. Read those as the practice’s own history statement. This article does not attach client names, award citations, a formulation count or a claim that Lubechem itself holds API, BIS, NSF or RDSO licences. Formulating toward a specification is not the same thing as being the certificate holder. Where the timeline names a market, it does not authorise this page to invent a case study.
What ‘CEO-led’ means on a formulation file
On a small practice the title is not a masthead. It describes who is allowed to close a technical decision. A CEO-led file, in the way Lubechem uses the phrase, means Er. Manoj Kumar sees the duty brief, the candidate bill of materials, the trials that failed, and the manufacturing instruction before they are called deliverables. It does not mean a founder’s photograph on a proposal that a junior then has to invent a recipe to match.
You should be able to feel that in the questions that come back. What is the metal temperature, not the brochure temperature? Which ASTM or ISO method is the pass, and who will run it? What does the kettle actually have: volume, heating medium, mill, filter? A file that skips those and jumps to a percentage is not founder-led. It is a quotation. The R&D scope behind that habit is summarised on the R&D page.
Independence as a process, not a slogan
Independence is easy to print and easy to fake. The process version is plainer. Lubechem does not sit inside Lubrizol, Afton, Infineum or Chevron Oronite, and it is not commissioned to defend one of their packages. A package from any of them can still be the right recommendation when the evidence, the calendar or the licence says so. The conflict to avoid is a consultant who is paid twice: once by you, and once by the additive house whose drum just became “the only technical option”.
The working rules are ordinary and they are in writing. A mutual NDA before the recipe, the prices and the failed batches are discussed. Components named by function and by grade, not by a single catalogue number you can never leave. A second supplier only after the same methods pass on your base oil, because two ZDDPs or two sulfonate thickeners are not automatically the same material. No award, no “approved by” mark, and no plant photograph offered as a substitute for a test report. If a commercial page states a treat-cost aim against branded packages, that aim stays a project target. It is not a biography and it is not a guaranteed saving.
How a first engagement actually runs (NDA → discovery → proposal)
The contact page is the process, and this article should not invent a smoother one. Technical discussion waits on an NDA. The initial assessment is the free 60-minute discovery call: what the SKU is, what the plant can actually make, and which specification is the target. A written proposal follows, in the five days that page commits to. Response to the first enquiry is one business day. None of those sentences is a formulation result. They are scheduling.
What the proposal has to contain, or it is not yet a proposal, is the duty, the methods, what is in scope, what is explicitly out of scope, and the intellectual-property language. “Full transfer” as a headline is not that language. The assignment clause is. If you want the conversation, use the contact page and say whether you blend oils, make grease, or are still deciding which plant to build. Do not send a competitor’s confidential recipe as the brief.
Who this practice is not for
Lubechem is the wrong call if you need a drum of grease or a tote of hydraulic oil dispatched this week. There is no shopfront and no standing inventory hiding behind the formulation pages. It is the wrong call if you want an API donut, an NSF H1 registration or a BIS licence printed because a consultant sounded confident. Those marks have owners and audit trails. It is the wrong call if the assignment is “match this sample” with no concern for whose composition that sample is. Reverse engineering a public performance target is a formulation job. Misappropriating a trade secret is not.
It is also the wrong call if you want the recipe by email and the troubleshooting left to a distributor. The deliverable, when the project is scoped that way, includes the manufacturing instruction and the test file, and commissioning on your kettle only if the proposal says commissioning. Buyers who want that discipline, and who are willing to be told that a branded package is the better tool, are the ones the practice is built for.
What Lubechem will and will not claim
This page will claim a name, a qualification, a city and a year: Er. Manoj Kumar, chemical engineer, New Delhi, 2010. It will claim that he leads the technical file. It will not claim awards, a client list, a number of formulations, or certificates the practice does not hold. Illustrations are conceptual documents, not scans of client files.
Anything beyond that biography is either on the About page as the company’s own timeline or it is absent on purpose. If a later page and this article ever disagree, the narrower statement is the one to trust until the site is corrected. The work, if it proceeds, is chemistry under a contract, not a reputation borrowed from an additive house.
What a due-diligence reader can treat as stated
| Topic | Stated | Not stated on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Who | Er. Manoj Kumar, chemical engineer, leads the file | Awards, honorary titles, or a staff count |
| Where and when | Lubechem Consultant, New Delhi, founded 2010 | A plant tour, a laboratory accreditation, a client logo |
| Independence | Not an additive-house commission | A promise that every component has three suppliers today |
| First contact | NDA, 60-minute discovery, proposal in five days, as the contact page publishes | A formulation result or a price list disguised as a biography |
Biography worth using is narrow: chemical engineer, New Delhi, practice founded in 2010, founder still on the file. No awards, no client roster and no certificates are added here.
Questions plants actually ask
Is Lubechem a grease manufacturer or a shop?
Neither. It is an independent formulation practice. You get a formula, a manufacturing instruction and a test file under a contract. You do not get a drum from stock.
Does Er. Manoj Kumar still work on the formula?
Yes. The practice is set up so the founder reviews the brief, the candidates, the failures and the SOP. A proposal with his name and a recipe he has not seen is not how the file is meant to close.
Are the API, BIS, NSF and RDSO marks on the website Lubechem certificates?
No. They are specifications the practice formulates toward. Holding the licence or the registration is a separate fact, and this article does not claim it.
What should we read before we book the call?
The About page for the biography and timeline, the R&D page for scope, and the contact page for how the NDA and the proposal actually run. Send the duty, not a confidential third-party formula.
Literature and prior art
Citations below are orientation, not a freedom-to-operate opinion. Lubechem does not copy claimed compositions and does not treat a patent as a product endorsement.
- Lubechem About page — Founded 2010 in New Delhi by chemical engineer Er. Manoj Kumar. Later timeline is the company’s own history statement, not a client list.
- Lubechem contact page — NDA before technical discussion, 60-minute discovery, written proposal in five days, one-business-day response.
- Project contract — Ownership, exclusions and background know-how are whatever the assignment clause says.