Professional Documents
Culture Documents
221
An empirical study of the practices of the Capital Budgeting for evaluation of investment
proposals in the corporate sector in India has been made in the preceding chapters.
Comparison, wherever possible, has been made with the practices and procedures in the
foreign countries. It has to be noted that conclusions based upon a study of this type have
to be taken as indicative of broad trends only. However, the results of this study do
indicate that majority of large scale companies in India are aware of the need for a well
formulated capital budgeting decisions. It is proposed to review the important findings of
this study and venture to outline some suggestions and recommendations for the benefit
of academicians, industry as well as for post doctoral research.
An in-depth analysis has been carried out to observe the trend and insight into factors that
influence capital budgeting decisions. The results of the survey and its analysis have been
provided in chapter 5.
The companies in India do have specific amount of average size of annual capital budget
and all project size requires formal quantitative analysis. However, such analysis and use
of capital budgeting method differ on the basis of nature and size of a particular project
under consideration. Surprisingly, the companies under study in India seem to be
planning one year in advance only but here also the period of planning is different for
different projects. This may be due to volatile business environment. The authority to take
final capital budgeting decision rests with the chief finance officer and top management
officials of all the organizations under study.
One of the objectives of this study is to determine the types of capital investments
undertaken and the methods of appraisal used. The responding firms ranked pay back
period as the most important technique followed by internal rate return and net present
value. Thus, pay back period method (59.3%) still continues to be the most favoured
technique though it ignores time value of money and also the cash flow beyond pay back
period followed by IRR. But almost all the companys are using now multiple techniques
222
for evaluating their capital budgeting proposals. In this research study, the companys
prefer IRR and NPV with the PBP method. The investment in the new projects being
strategic decisions in nature IRR, PBP and NPV are the most preferred techniques while
for expansion, replacement, modernization, etc. PBP is favoured by the respondents.
Another objective of this study is to analyze the problems faced to estimate the cash flows
associated with each capital investment accurately. The cash flow estimation is
considered as the most difficult task in capital budgeting decisions. This can be
understood from the responses of the respondents of the present study. Many respondents
have replied that items like expenses incurred on R&D, market survey, test marketing,
interest on borrowings, depreciation, income taxes etc. have been included in the cash
flows which requires to be excluded actually. In fact, many of them might have been
intending to convey that they include it in the project cost. Even the firms are using
different inflation adjustment methods for their investment appraisal.
One of the objectives of this research is to analyze how Risk and Uncertainty in the
future estimates in investment projects is being taken care of. Sensitivity analysis is
considered as the most important technique while scenario analysis is considered as the
second important technique for assessing risk. The other more sophisticated techniques
like Decision tree, Monte Carlo simulation, Certainty equivalent, Probability analysis,
Beta analysis has got very low ratings that means these techniques are rarely used in
practice by firms in India.
The researcher wanted to assess suitability of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Techniques
in India and the preferences between Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of
Return (IRR) methods. All the companies responded to my study are using DCF
techniques either IRR or NPV or both which indicates that now these techniques are very
well accepted and used by finance officials of the organizations. With reference to this
Porwal (1976) in his study has mentioned, As long term planning under the present
conditions is not quite possible in India, the use of DCF methods do not seem to be
efficacious. However, it needs to be mentioned that as conditions improve, it would be
desirable for Indian companies to apply theoretically correct techniques in a larger
measure. Prasanna Chandra (1975) in his study conducted on 20 companies made the
223
following observations. The most commonly used method for evaluating the investments
of small size is payback period method.For investments of large size, the average rate
of return is commonly used as the principle criterion and the payback period is used as a
supplementary criterion. DCF techniques, though not commonly used, are gaining
importance, particularly in the evaluation of large investments. It appears that now
though the government restrictions are minimized on business but firms are always
working under highly volatile environment. Still no respondents in my study is using only
pay back period method at the same time no organizations are using single technique for
evaluating capital budgeting proposals. Though Pay back period is still a popular
technique, it is always used with some other DCF techniques which are in most of the
cases IRR or NPV. The suitability of DCF techniques even depends on how professional
the organization is. But all the respondents in my study appreciate and use the suitability
of these techniques. In capital budgeting literature, two widely discussed methods for
appraisal of capital investments are the NPV and IRR methods. There is good amount of
controversy exist regarding the superiority of one method over the other. Many authors
argue that the NPV method leads to correct decision (Bierman and Smidt S, 1980). On the
other hand Merret A J and Sykes A (1966) prefer the yield method. In some situations the
NPV and yield methods give contradictory results. Babu C P (1984) explains the reasons
for this phenomenon-in capital investment appraisal using the yield like yield to
maturity in bonds, or as a growth rate of an investment is misleading, and is responsible
for the contradictions that exist between the NPV and yield methods. He further says
that as the NPV criterion is compatible with the objective of the firm, the yields can be
used in such a manner so as to give the same results as that of NPV. The respondents of
my study prefer both the techniques but IRR (40.7%) seems to be given more importance
by them in comparison to NPV (33.3%) as it gives some rate for comparison. When they
were asked to mention frequency of the use of different capital budgeting techniques the
NPV (59.3%) got more preference than IRR (55.5%). Thus, it can be concluded that both
the techniques goes side by side when it comes to selecting one over the other. The
respondents of my study prefer both the techniques but IRR seems to be more favoured
by them as it gives some rate for comparison, however, there is a negligible difference
between the preference for both the techniques i.e. NPV and IRR. The uses of DCF
techniques require determining the minimum acceptable rate of return for using it as a
224
discount rate. The study reveals that weighted average cost of capital (55.6%) is
maximum in use for using it as a discount rate. And the preferred methods of estimating
cost of equity are CAPM (capital asset pricing model) and dividend yield plus growth rate
followed by cost of debt plus risk premium. The use of present market values of debtequity is more preferred (46.67%) while calculating WACC. Generally, the companies do
not prefer to use different discount rates for different sizes of investment. The maximum
number of companies (70.4%) do prefer to categorize projects into different risk classes
and they feel that fluctuations in expected return as a major risk factor followed by
changes in economic, social and political factors. Sensitivity analysis (81.4%) is
considered as the important technique for assessing risk followed by scenario analysis
(62.9%). There is no major switch in techniques by the companies for investment
appraisal. Almost three fifth of the firms place a limit on the size of its annual capital
budget. There are many reasons responsible for it but the main reason is investment
decisions important for whole group and require central control (38.9%) followed by the
another reason i.e. management wants to control areas of activity and mix of products.
The companies do accept non-economic projects due to many reasons viz., health and
safety, legislation, social and environmental reasons etc. The most of the firms prefer to
go for post audits of their major capital expenditures. The CFOs and Board of Directors
are involved for approving almost all capital budgeting projects in all organizations.
Further, An effort has been made to develop a relationship between the independent variables;
Plant and machinery and sales to explain the variation in the dependent variable as operating
income of the company. The analysis has been carried out with the help of regression analysis.
The period covered in the study is last five financial years (2003-2007). The summarized results
of analysis for each company are provided in the chapter 6.
It is clear from the results obtained that, in most cases the R2 for almost 90 % of the
companies is around 95 %. Thus, it can be said that capital budgeting decisions leading to
investment in plant and machinery and sales together influence almost 95 % variation in
the operating income of a company. Thus, our findings, through the above analysis it can
be stated that proper usage of capital budgeting techniques lead to accurate decision for
225
investment in fixed assets especially plant and machinery and hence better operating
income that the better capital budgeting.
Limitations of the study:
It is important to acknowledge and discuss some of the limitations of the study.
The survey was limited to the large scale listed firms only. The capital budgeting
practices of listed firms may not be representative of all firms in India. The survey
questionnaires used in this study were inherently limited in scope which is based upon
stringent underlying assumptions about market conditions and firm behavior. Such an
approach implies a level of universality that may not exist. Further research is needed to
discover whether there are significant cultural and institutional issues related to corporate
financial policies and practices that are unique to India. The results of the study are
compared with the results of previous surveys in the U.S. and other countries of the AsiaPacific region. However, such comparisons among the countries must be approached
cautiously because the surveys were conducted at different times and during different
economic conditions. While the survey was mailed to the CFO, the responses were the
opinion of one individual and thus may not fully reflect the firms position. It is possible
that this person may not be the best to assess the capital budgeting process if he/she is far
removed from capital management. There is also potential concern about a non-response
bias. In an attempt to limit this limitation, five personalized mailings were sent over a
period of one year. Further, the companies participated in survey will be given a copy of
results. While the survey technique is not without flaws, it has been generally accepted as
a reasonable proxy given the time and personal constraints in large scale companies.
Suggestions/Scope for Further Research study:
Due to the limited scope of the present study, a large number of research issues are not
attempted but are felt in the course of the study. Some of them are as follows.
1. The results of this study reveal a number of subjective factors used by managers to
evaluate proposed investments. So the human side of Capital budgeting would be an
interesting focus for further research.
226
2. There is a need to link the survey responses across different areas of financial
management. For example, It would be interesting to know is there a link between use
of a particular capital budgeting method and use of a particular source of finance or
use of a particular method of determining discount rate.
3. As these decisions affect the long term future survival and growth of the organization,
it would also be interesting to study whether the capital budgeting decision makers are
getting any special incentives or otherwise for taking such decision which generate
desired results.
4. Though the conditions in India have improved significantly after economic reforms,
there is a need to study the impact of taxation and government policies on capital
budgeting decisions of firms in India.
5. One of the unexplored areas still is the relationship between the capital budgeting
techniques and the strategic and corporate planning procedures used. Future research
will also be needed to understand why organizations have selected capital budgeting
practices and the extent to which selection and use of capital budgeting practices
matters in the efficiency and viability of a particular investment proposal and their
business as a whole.
6. There is a need to investigate how firms deal with some typical problems of the
capital budgeting decision process in specialized areas such as high technology and
social expenditures because there is a great uncertainty about the cash flows
associated with high technology projects and the benefits from a social project may
only be indirectly associated with identifiable cash flows.
Thus from all the discussions in the preceding pages, I can safely predict that the trend to
adopt and use theoretically superior techniques for capital budgeting decisions will
continue at an accelerating pace and at the same time organization will modify these
practices looking to their changing requirements and will also start using some value
management tools like EVA (economic value added), VIR (value improvement ratio),
SVA (shareholder value analysis), Real Options etc. There will be significant increase in
the use of multiple evaluation techniques with the rapid use of computers. The increased
227
228
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
ARTICLES
WEB SITES
229
BIBLIOGRAPHY :
BOOKS
Publishing House
Suk H. Kim and Trevor Crick (1984): How Non-US MNCs Practice Capital
Budgeting, Management Accounting, January
Thorne Henry C. & Piekarski Julian A.: Techniques for Capital Expenditure
Analysis, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Van Horne James C. and Wachowicz, Jr. John M., Fundamentals of Financial
Management (Tenth Ed.), Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 1999
Van Horne James C. and Wachowicz, Jr. John M.,Fundamentals of Financial
Management (Eleventh Ed.), Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 2002,pg.
147, 378
Van Horne, J.C., Financial Management and Policy, Prentice-Hall of India, 1974,
p.74
Wilkes F.M., Capital Budgeting Techniques [2nd ed], A Wiley Interscience
Publication, John Wiley & Sons
232
ARTICLES
Beaves Robert G., A comment on Interpreting Rates of Return: A modified Rateof-Return Approach, Financial Practice & Education, pp 136-137
Beranek William, The Weighted Average Cost of Capital and Shareholder Wealth
Maximization, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, March 1977, pg.
17-31
Bernhard Richard H., Some New Capital Budgeting Theorems: comment, Journal
of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, December 1978, pg. 825-829
Bhalla V K, Creating Wealth- Corporate Financial Strategy and Decision Making,
Journal of Management Research
Bierman H J (1993), Capital Budgeting in 1992:A Survey, Financial Management,
Vol.22,p.24
Binder John J. and Chaput Scott J., A positive analysis of corporate capital
budgeting practices, Review of quantitative finance and accounting, 6(1996):pp
245-257
Block Stanley (2000), Integrating Traditional Capital Budgeting Concepts Into An
International Decision-Making Environment, Engineering Economist; 2000, Vol.
45 Issue 4, p309, 17p
Block Stanley; Are there any differences in capital budgeting procedures between
industries? An empirical study, The Engineering Economist, 50, pp 55-67
Block Stanley; Capital budgeting techniques used by small business firms in the
1990s, The Engineering Economist, Summer 1997, v42 n4 p289(14)
Block Stanley; Integrating traditional capital budgeting concepts into an
international decision-making environment, The Engineering Economist, 2000,
volume 45, Number 4, pp 309-325
Bradford Garnett L. and Miller Stephen E.; An analysis of alternative NPV capital
investment decision models, working paper, October 1998
Bunch Beverly S., Current practices and issues in capital budgeting and reporting,
Public Budgeting & Finance, Summer 1996, pp 7-25
Canada, J.R. and N.P.Miller, Review of surveys on capital investment evaluation
techniques,The Engineering Economist, Vol.30, No.2,1984, pp.193-200
234
Financial
Management,
Caspian
235
Eagle David and Kiefer Dean, Comparing capital projects with unequal lives:
Inflation and technology issues, pp148-153
Farrell Michael, Financial Engineering in Project Management, Project
Management Journal, March 2002, pp. 27-36
Fremgen, J.M.,Capital Budgeting, Management Accounting, Vol.54,May
1973,pp.19-25
Froot Kenneth A., Stein Jeremy C., Risk Management, Capital Budgeting and
Capital Structure Policy Financial Institutions: An Integrated Approach, NBER
Working Paper Series, Working Paper 5403, January 1996
Gifford Dun, Jr. How CFOs Really Practice Finance, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Winter 2001
Gitman, Lawrence G. and Forrester, John R. Jr.,A Survey of Capital Budgeting
Techniques Used by Major U.S. Firms, Financial Management, Fall 1977, pg 6671
Goswami D. K., Capital Budgeting Techniques in Investment Decisions, SBI
Monthly Review, March 1990, 109-123
Graham John and Harvey Campbell (2002), How do CFOS Make Capital
Budgeting and Capital Structure Decisions?, Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, Vol 15, No 1 SPRING 2002, pp 8-23
Graham John R. and Harvey Campbell R.(2001); The theory and practice of
corporate finance: Evidence from the field, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol
60, Nos 2&3, pp187-243
Gupta Sanjeev, Batra Roopali and Sharma Manisha,Capital Budgeting Practices
in Punjab-based Companies, The Icfai Journal of APPLIED FINANCE, February
2007, Vol. 13, No.2, pp. 57-70
Harel Arie & Harpaz Giora, Project valuation with time-varying cash flows:A
Bayesian approach, The Engineering Economist, 50:337-359
Hermes, N. & Smid, P. & Yao, L.(2006),Capital Budgetting Practices: A
comparative Study of the Netherlands and China, University of Groningen,
Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management) in its series
Research Report with number 06E02
236
Hogaboam Liliya S. and Shook Steven R., Capital budgeting practices in the U.S.
forest products industry: A reappraisal, Forest Products Journal, December
2004,Vol.54, No. 12, pp 149-158
Hoots Mike, Finance for FMs, Capital Planning and Budgeting, Buildings,
October 2005, pg 46-50
Howe Keith M., Capital Budgeting and Search: An Overview, The Journal of
Financial Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, 1978, pg. 23-33
Hsu Christine, Capital budgeting analysis in wholly owned subsidiaries, Journal of
Financial and Strategic Decisions, volume 13, Number 1, Spring 2000
Jagannathan Ravi and Meler Iwan; Do we need CAPM for capital budgeting?;
Financial Management, Winter 2002, pp 55-77
Jain Dr. P. K. and Prof. Yadav Surendra S. (2000), Capital budgeting practices in
corporate enterprises: A comparative study of India, Singapore and Thailand,
Management and Accounting Research, January-March 2000, pg. 25-63
Jain P K and Kumar M (1998), Comparative Capital Budgeting Practices:The
Indian Context, Management and Change, January-June, pp. 151-171
Jain P.K., Jain S.K. and Tarde S.M., Capital budgeting practices of private
corporate sector in India-some empirical evidence, The Management Accountant,
November 1995, pg 813-820
Jog Vijay M and Srivastava Ashwani K., Capital budgeting practices in corporate
Canada, Financial Practice & Education, Fall/Winter 1995, pp 37-43
Karim Mir Nazmul and Manickavasagam V., Implications of Cost of Capital and
financial leverage on Selected Industrial Units of Bangladesh,The Management
Accountant, December 2003, pg. 896-903
Katrekar Sanjay S., Capital budgeting decisions in a capital rationing scenario, The
Management Accountant, April 1997, pg 300-307
Kelly John W. and Fischer James R., An Analysis of Alternative Ner Present
Value Capital Investment Decision Models, WP102798, October 1998
Kester George W and Chang Rosita P (1999), Capital Budgeting Practices in the
Asia-Pacific Region:Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and
Singapore, Financial Practice and Education, Vol 9, No.1, pp 25-33
237
Kester, George W, and Tsui Kai Chong, Capital budgeting practices of listed firms
in Singapore, Singapore Management Review, 2001, pp 9-23
Kim, S.H. and E.J. Farragher,Current capital budgeting practices,Management
Accounting, Vol. 62, June 1981, pp.26-29
Kim, Suk H. and Farragher, Edward J,Current
Practices,Management Accounting, June 1981, pg. 26-30
Capital
Budgeting
238
Mao James C. T., Survey of Capital Budgeting: Theory and Practice, The Journal
of Finance, pg, 349-360
Madhani Pankaj M, RO-Based Capital Budgeting: A Dynamic Approach in New
Economy, The ICFAI Journal of Applied Finance, November 2008, Vol. 14, No.
11, pg 48-67
McDonald Robert L, The Role of Real Options in Capital Budgeting: Theory and
Practice, Journalof Applied Corporate Finance, Spring 2006,Vol. 18, No. 2, pg.
28-39
Madhani Pankaj M, RO-Based Capital Budgeting: A Dynamic Approach in New
Economy, The Icfai Journal of APPLIED FINANCE, November 2008, Vol. 14,
No. 11, pg. 48-67
Meier, Christofides, and Salkin; Capital budgeting under uncertainty-An integrated
approach using contingent claims analysis and integer programming; Operations
Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, March-April 2001,pp 196-206
Mikael Collan and Stefan Lngstrm, Flexibility in Investments: Exploratory
Survey on How Finnish Companies Deal with Flexibility in Capital Budgeting,
TUCS Technical Report No 453, April 2002
Mills Roger W., Measuring the Use of Capital Budgeting Techniques with the
Postal Questionnaire: A UK Perspective, INTERFACES 18: 5 September-October
1988, pg. 81-87
Mogul Samir S.; APV The Preferred DCF Approach; The Chartered Accountant,
July 2002, pp. 110-118
Moore James S. and Reichert Alan K., An Analysis of the Financial Management
Techniques Currently Employed by Large U.S. Corporations, Journal of business
Finance & Accounting 10, 4 (1983), pg. 623-645
Pablo Fernandez; Valuing Companies by Cash Flow Discounting: Ten Methods
and Nine Theories; The ICFAI Journal of APPLIED FINANCE, Vol. 10, No. 1,
January 2004
Pawlina Grzegorz and Kort Peter M., Strategic capital budgeting: asset
replacement under market uncertainty, OR Spectrum (2003)25:443-479,
DOI:10,1007/s00291-003-0137-3
Payne Janet D., Heath Carrington Will, and Gale Lewis R.; Comparative Financial
Practice in the US and Canada: Capital Budgeting and Risk Assessment
Techniques, Financial Practice and Education, Spring/Summer 1999, pg. 16-24
239
Petry Glenn H and Sprow James (1993), The Theory of Finance in 1990s, The
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, pp 359-381
Petty, J. William Petty, David P. Scott, and Monroe M. Bird, The Capital
Expenditure Decision-Making Process of Large Corporations,The Engineering
Economist, Spring 1975, 159-171
Pike Richard and Roberts Brian, Investment hurdle rates and the cost of capital,
Management Accounting, May 1980, pg 26-28
Pike Richard, A longitudinal survey on capital budgeting practices, Journal of
Business Finance & Accounting, 23(1), January 1996, 0306-686X, pp.79-92
Pohlman Randolph A., Santiago Emmanuel S., and Markel Lynn F.; Cash Flow
Estimation Practices of Large Firms, Financial Management, summer 1988, 71-79
Porwal L.S., Capital Budgeting Techniques and Profitability an empirical study,
Indian Management, May 1976, pg 9-13
Prabhakara Babu C. and Sharma Aradhana; Capital budgeting Practices in Indian
Industry, ASCI Journal of Management, Volume 25, 1996
Rao Cherukuri U (1996); Capital budget practices: A comparative study of India
and select South East Asian Countries, ASCI Journal of Management, Volume 25,
pp 30-46
Ross Marc, Capital Budgeting Practices of Twelve Large Manufacturers,
Financial Management (winter 1986) vol. 15, issue 4, pp 15-22
Ryan Patricia A. & Ryan Glenn P.; Capital Budgeting Practices of the Fortune
1000: How Have Things Changed?, Journal of Business and Management,
Volume 8, Number 4, Winter 2002.
Sara, Investment is a good thing, Management Accounting, September 1980, pg 48
Schall L.D., Sundem G.L., Geijsbeek W.R.; Aurvey and Analysis of Capital
Budgeting Methods, Journal of Finance, March 1978
Segelod Esbj rn, THE CAPITAL BUDGETING MANUAL
Segelod Esbjorn, A Note on the Survey of Practice in Divisionalized Groups,
Uppsala University, Sweden, February 1996
Soldofsky, Robert M.:The What, Why and How of Capital Budgeting for smaller
Businesses, Article reprinted in Frontiers of Financial Management by Serraino,
240
241
WEBSITES
242
ANNEXURE I : QUESTIONNAIRE
1.
2.
For most of the questions choice answers are provided. Please either,
3.
4.
Kindly send the duly filled in questionnaire to the address given below:
Ms Kamini Shah
Senior Lecturer (Finance)
SEMCOM College,
Opp. Shastri Ground
Vallabh Vidyanagar 388 120
Gujarat (India)
243
SECTION A
1.
Do you / your company use any capital budgeting methods like payback period
(PBP), Net present value (NPV), Internal rate of return (IRR) etc for evaluating
investment decision ?
Yes
No
2.
3.
101-500
501-1000
1001-5000
Above 5000
Size (Rs.)
No specific amount
0 to Rs. 50,000
50,001 to 1,00,000
1,00,001 to 5,00,000
5,00,001 to 10,00,000
10,00,001 to 50,00,000
244
4.
5.
Evaluation Technique
245
6.
Please ; the capital budgeting technique used by you for evaluating various
investment decisions. You may tick multiple techniques if used.
Investment Decision
ARR
1.
New Project
2.
3.
Merger / Acquisition
4.
Replacement of Assets
5.
Leasing of Assets
6.
Modernization
7.
IRR
NPV
PBP
Others
Any other
8.
7.
Evaluation
Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Technique
[100%]
[75%]
[50%]
[25%]
[0%]
246
8.
Where your firm uses more than one technique for appraising major investments,
please indicate the relative importance attached to each technique by entering
against the items listed below: 1 for the item to which you attach most importance;
2 for the next most important item; and so on. Please do not enter rankings against
techniques that are not used by your firm.
Evaluation Technique
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Payback Period (PBP)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Accounting Rate of Return (ARR)
Profitability Index (PI)
Other [pl. specify]
9.
Do you use any cut-off points to evaluate the viability of major capital
investments?
PBP
0-2 years
ARR
NPV/IRR
11-15%
0-10%
2-4 years
4-6 years
6-10 years
16-20%
21-30%
31%
11-15%
247
16-20%
21-30%
30% or
more
10. In estimating the cash flows, how do you treat the following items?
Included / excluded
11.
What are the inflation adjustment methods used for investment appraisal
by your firm?
Please ;
Specify cash flow in constant prices and apply a real rate of return
All cash flows expressed in inflated price terms and discounted at the
market rate of return
Considered at risk analysis or sensitivity analysis
No adjustment
Other[pl. specify]
248
12.
13.
[a]
[b]
[d]
[e]
If you use the cost of capital as the discount rate, how do you estimate the cost of
equity and cost of retained earnings? Please ;
14.
Do you use different discount rates for different sizes of investment/for different
types of projects?
Yes
15.
No
If your company is using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital [WACC] for
evaluating the capital budgeting project then how do you define the weights?
Please ;
249
16.
Do you categorize projects in to different risk classes such as low risk, moderate
risk and high risk? If yes, how do you decide an appropriate class of risk for each
project?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
17.
18.
Non-recoverable
Fear of obsolescence
Please indicate the relative importance of each of the following techniques used in
your firm to assess risk (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=not used, 2=unimportant,
3=somewhat important, 4=important and 5=very important).
Evaluation Technique
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario Analysis
Decision tree
Monte Carlo simulation
By adjusting the future cash flows
By certainty equivalent approach
By adjusting the discount rate
Subjective assessment
Probability analysis
Shorten Payback period
Beta analysis
Any other (Please specify)
250
19. Do you review various projects under capital budgeting at different hierarchical
levels? If yes:
20.
21.
If your preference is for discounted cash flow methods then between NPV and
IRR which method is preferred by you? Why?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
22.
Has there been a major switch in techniques used over the last 5 years?
Yes
23.
No
Does your firm place a limit on the size of its annual capital budget?
Yes
No
24.
Are there specific capital expenditure ceilings placed on operating units which
sometimes lead to the rejection of viable projects?
Please ;
Investment decisions important for whole group and
require central control
Management wants to control cash, because of a shortage
of funds
Management wants to control areas of activity and mix of
products
25.
26.
Legislation
Social/Environmental
Repair/Maintenance
Other
Which are the factors deciding capital budgeting method in your company?
Please ;
Finance Theory
Easy to Understand
252
27.
Never [0%]
SECTION B
28.
What are the reasons for not using any appraisal method for capital budgeting?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
Name
....................................
Designation
.....................................
Yes
No
.................................................................................................................................
About the company :
1.
.................................
2.
Year of Establishment
.................................
3.
Nature of business
..................................
4.
..................................
254
The Registered office of the company is in Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and its manufacturing
units are in Khatrej, Santej (Mahesana) and Ahmadabad in Gujarat and Bangalore in
Karnatak.
Arvind Ltd is a nominated supplier of fabrics to Nike Golf, Marks & Spencer, Arnold
Palmer, Eddie Bauer, Calvin Klein and Columbia Sportswear.
3. Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd.
Astrazeneca Pharma India (AZPIL) is the 90 per cent owned manufacturing and
marketing subsidiary of Astra Pharmaceuticals AB, Sweden. Astra Pharmaceuticals AB,
Sweden is held by Astrazeneca AB, Sweden. Astrazeneca AB, Sweden is ultimately held
by Astrazeneca plc, United Kingdom.
AZIPL is mandated to discover new chemical entities for treating infectious diseases like
tuberculosis. The company has an R&D facility to discover new drugs as well as a
process R&D facility at its campus in Bangalore.
Astrazeneca Pharma India (AZPIL) is Astrazeneca plc, United Kingdom's publicly-traded manufacturing and marketing entity. As on 31 December 2006, the company had
897 employees. It's products span seven therapeutic healthcare segments. These include
cardiovascular, critical care, maternal healthcare, oncology, gastrointestinal and
respiratory.
AZPIL's manufacturing facility is spread over 69 acres at Yelahanka--Bangalore. It
conforms to the World Health Organization's cGMP (current Good Manufacturing
Practices) norms and is an ISO 14001 certified company. In 2006, the plant was
accredited by the Japanese FDA to export Terbutaline Sulphate (used to treat patients
suffering from asthma and bronchitis).
255
256
The company has promoted a portal, E-sugarindia, which aims at providing timely and
accurate information for sugar trading and has been facilitating spot and future trading in
sugar for the last five years. The governments has granted recognition to E-sugarindia to
conduct futures trading in sugar only till 31 May 2007.
6. Berger Paints India Ltd.
Owned by the Dhingra group, Berger Paints India Limited was incorporated in the year
1923. The company was originally formed by Mr. Hadfield and the Dhingra Group took
over it in 1991. Currently Mr. G. S. Dhingra is the Vice-Chairman and Mr. Subir Bose is
the Managing Director of the company. The promoter of the company hold about 74
percent of the equity capital while institutional investors hold about 10 percent and
individuals hold about 14 percent stake in the company.
The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of paints &
varnishes in India. Its product range includes synthetic enamel, interior & exterior wall
coatings, wood finish and acrylic emulsions. Enamels are marketed in the brand name of
Luxol Hi Synthetic, Luxol Satin, Luxol Lustre etc. Weathercoat Longlife, Weathercoat
Smooth 100% Acrylic are popular brands of exterior wall coatings. The company has
launched Berger Lewis Color Bank, which is based on computerised paint technology,
having a range of shades.
The registered office of Berger Paints is at in Kolkata and the manufacturing facilities of
the company are situated in West Bengal, Goa, UP, Pondicherry and Jammu & Kashmir.
7. Cadbury India Ltd.
Cadbury India Limited, incorporated in 1948 is the wholly owned Indian subsidiary of the
UK based Cadbury Schweppes Plc. which is a global confectionary & beverages
company. It was originally known as Cadbury-Fry (India) Private Limited and was
renamed in 1989 as Cadbury India Limited. Its registered office is in Mumbai.
It operates in India in the segments of chocolates, Sugar confectionery and food drinks.
Its leading brands in the chocolate segment are Cadburys Dairy Milk, Fruit & Nut,
257
Crackle, Temptations, 5 Star, Perk and Celebration gift boxes. In the Sugar confectionery
segment its popular brands are Cadbury Dairy Milk Eclairs and Halls. In the food drinks
segment its popular brands are Bournvita, Drinking Chocolate and Cocoa Powder. It has
also diversified into the snacking segment with its Cadbury Bytes.
Its manufacturing plants are located in Thane & Induri in Maharashtra, Malanpur in
Madhya Pradesh, and Baddi in Himachal Pradesh.
258
The company is also awarded ISO-9001 Certificate by TUV Management Service GmbH
for Design, Development, manufacturing, Installation and Servicing of Mining and
Construction Machines, Hydraulic Cylinders and Accessories.
9. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd
The Company was established in 1951, in Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India, pioneered the
manufacture of material handling equipment in India. During these four decades, Elecon has
designed and implemented several landmark projects in India as well as abroad.
From a modest start of design and manufacture of Elevators and Conveyors from which
incidentally, the company derives its corporate identity. viz. "Elecon". It has grown over the
years to be known as a pioneer of the concept of mechanized way of Bulk Material Handling
Equipment in India. Elecon has, made its presence felt through consistent and satisfactory
performance of its equipment in such core sectors as fertilizer, cement, coal/power generation,
chemical, steel plant and port mechanization etc., across the country.
Elecon is the first company in India to have manufactured sophisticated equipment for
Bulk Material Handling. Its product range includes design, engineering, manufacture,
supply, erection and commission of:
Wagon tipplers
Crawler-mounted trippers
Stationary and shift able conveying systems for open cast lignite mines
259
Helical, spiral bevel helical, planetary and worm reduction gear units and
couplings.
Helical gears
Planetary gears
Couplings, and
Elecon has expertise in providing customised gear boxes for Steel Mills, High Speed
Turbines, Sugar Mills, Marine vessels, Coast Guard Ships, Plastic Extrusions, Antena
Drives and for Satellites in the Indian Space Programme.
Incorporated in 1973 Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Limited was co-promoted by Gujarat
Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (GIIC), a wholly owned company of the
Government of Gujarat.
260
The promoters' holds about 37 per cent of the total equity of the company while
institutional investors hold around 23 per cent and individuals hold about 26 percent.
Currently Mr. S. G. Mankad is the Chairman and Mr. P.K. Taneja is the MD of the
company.
GACL has integrated manufacturing installations for Caustic Soda, Chlorine, Hydrogen
Gas, Hydrochloric Acid, Chloromethanes, Hydrogen Peroxide, Phosphoric Acid,
Potassium Hydroxide, Potassium Carbonate, Sodium Cyanide, Sodium Ferrocyanide. The
products of the company are classified into Caustic Soda Group, Caustic Potash Group,
Chloromethane Group, Sodium Group, Hydrogen Peroxide Group, Phosphoric Acid
Group etc.
The registered office of GACL is at Vadodara and has two manufacturing units at
Vadodara and Dahej, in Gujarat. It has a well-established nationwide network of dealer
and exports its products to USA, Europe, Australia, Africa, Far & Middle East countries,
China & South Asian Markets.
261
The company has an installed capacity to manufacture 94,060 tonnes of malted milk
products per annum, spread over three facilities located at Nabha (Punjab), Rajmundry
(Andhra Pradesh) and Sonepat (Haryana). It has a strong marketing and distribution
network comprising over 1,800 wholesalers and over four lakh retail outlets across
India.
Some of its famous brands are Crocin (paracetamol), Eno (antacid) and Iodex (balm).
GMM Pfaudler`s fluoro polymer division manufactures various PTFE products, such as
teflon envelope gaskets, nozzle liners and bushes, and control system pipes internally
lined by isostatically molded PTFE liners. Its filters and filter-dryers are utilized in the
inorganic and organic chemical, fine chemical and Pharmaceutical industries.
The company`s client list includes Alembic, Hoechst Schering Agrevo, Bayer India,
Cheminova India, Chemplast Sanmar, Cipla, Colour-Chem, Gharda Chemicals, GE
Plastics India, Glaxo India, Hindustan Inks and Resins, Indian Organic Chemicals and
many more. In December 2007, the Company incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary,
GMM Mavag AG. GMM is based at Gujarat, India.
262
GMM Pfaudler has a state of the art plant spread over 20 acres at Karamsad Gujarat, 450
Kms north of Mumbai. GMM Pfaudler is the largest manufacturer of Glass-lined
equipment in India. We also manufacture Wiped Film Evaporators, Agitated Nutche
Filters, Hi efficiency Mixing systems, PTFE lined equipment and much more.
GMM Pfaudler a truly world-class organization with ISO9001 certified processes is
accredited by ASME & TUV for U Stamp & ADM - HP 0 respectively.
for Hydrography, Dynamic Terrain Visualization etc. GNFC also has the license to
provide Internet Gateway Service.
The registered office of GNFC is at Bharuch (Gujarat). It has a variety of Technology
Partners such as Linde AG (Germany), Texaco (USA), BASF (Germany), Haldor Topsoe
(Denmark), Snamprogetti (Italy), ICI (UK), Kemira OY (Finland), Plinke (Germany),
Toyo Engineering (Japan), Du Pont (USA) etc.
14. Grasim Industries Ltd.
Incorporated in the year 1947, Grasim Industries Ltd. is a flagship company of the Aditya
Birla Group. It diversified its business into the manufacturing of Viscose Staple Fiber
(VSF), Chemicals, Sponge iron, Cement and textiles.
The promoters hold the 25% of the equity while institutional investors hold about 43% of
the total share capital of the company. Individual investors hold a significant share of
about 13%. Currently Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla is the Chairman of the company.
Grasim's products include viscose staple fibre (VSF), grey cement and white cement,
sponge iron, chemicals and textiles. Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) is a man-made,
biodegradable fibre, which is widely used to manufacture fabrics for both woven and
knitted garments. Cement produced by the company are oil well cement, cement and
clinker. These have brand names like Birla Plus, Birla Super and Birla Ready Mix
concrete. .
The registered office of the company is in Nagda (M. P). The manufacturing plants of the
company are spread throughout the country. The cement plants are located in
Raipur(Chhatisgarh), Reddipalayam(TN), Shambhupura (Rajasthan), Batinda (Punjab),
Jawad (MP), Jodhpur (Rajasthan), Malkhed (Karnataka). The sponge iron plant is in
Raigad (Maharastra). And the chemical and textile plants are in Ujjain and Malanpur in
MP, Harihar (Karanataka) and Bhiwani (Haryana).
The registered office of the company is in Nagda (M. P)
264
plant.
Infrastructure
includes
continuous
power
&
water
supply,
52% of the Companys revenue comes from exports to USA, Europe, Latin America,
Africa, SE Asia. To further enhance its strength in foreign markets, JBCPL has also
entered into joint venture and strategic tie ups with key partners in USA etc.
17. KSB Pumps Ltd.
KSB Pumps Ltd., India was established in 1960 and is global leader in manufacturing
large and small pumps, valves etc.
KSB Pumps is Efficient, economically and reliably in applications that range from
building services to industrial processes, water engineering, mining and energy
technology. KSB pumps and valves provide and distribute water to private, public and
industrial buildings. They solve heating and air-conditioning problems. Chemical,
petrochemical and many other companies use them to transport aggressive, corrosive,
explosive, solids-laden and viscous liquids. KSB products deal with industrial and
municipal waste water. And they stand up to every temperature and pressure that power
generation can throw at them.
18. Larsen and Toubro
Larsen and Toubro, founded by two Danish engineers, Mr.Henning Holck Larsen and
Soren Kristian Toubro as a partnership firm in 1938, was incorporated as a company in
1946. It is one of the flagship company of Larsen & Toubro Group & the largest
engineering & construction conglomerate in Asia.
L&T carries out its diversified activities through its different divisions viz, ConstructionECC, Engineering & Construction-Projects, Heavy Engineering-Manufacture, Electrical
& Electronics, Information Technology and Machinery & Industrial Products division.
The ECC (engineering construction & contracts) division of L&T is the largest division
of the company. It constructs all kinds of buildings, provides infrastructural facilities,
takes up hydropower & irrigation projects, constructs thermal & non conventional power
plants & offers electrification services to major industries.
266
The heavy engineering division supplies equipment to Process plant industries, Defence,
Nuclear, Power & Aerospace sectors. The
Powai(Mumbai), Hazira(Surat) &
Division manufactures low voltage switchboards at their Faridabad & Powai plants. IT
division offers software solutions to various industries. The Machinery & Industrial
Products division manufactures construction & mining equipment, welding machineries,
metal cutting tools, rubber processing &
Institutional
Chairman cum MD
Mr.A.M.Naik.
267
50.97% of paid-up capital of the paid up share capital of Bayer ABS Limited from Bayer
Industries Private Ltd and became a holding Company of the Company.
ONGC ranks as the Numero Uno Oil & Gas Exploration & Production (E&P) Company
in Asia, as per Platts 250 Global Energy Companies List for the year 2007. ONGC ranks
23rd Leading Global Energy Major amongst the Top 250 Energy Majors of the World in
the Platts List based on outstanding performance in respect of Assets, Revenues, Profits
and Return on Invested Capital (RIOC) for the year 2007.
ONGC is the only fullyintegrated petroleum company in India, operating along the
entire hydrocarbon value chain:
268
ONGC owns and operates more than 15000 kilometers of pipelines in India, including
nearly 3800 kilometers of sub-sea pipelines. No other company in India, operates even 50
per cent of this route length.
research
activities
are
concentrated
around
vaccine
development,
biopharmaceuticals, drug delivery projects and drug discovery. It has four R&D centres -Laksh (Mohali, Punjab); Sampann (Lalru, Punjab); Vaccine & Biological research centre
(Delhi) and Biopharmaceutical R&D centre. On 11 February 2008, it opened its fifth
R&D facility -- GRAND dedicated towards advanced drug delivery systems at Navi
Mumbai.
The company's manufacturing facilities are located at New Delhi, Lalru in Punjab and
Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. All these facilities are WHO cGMP compliant. These
269
270
271
Sukhinda in Orissa. West Bokaro Colliery at Jharkhand and Birshibpur in Orissa are two
of its important coal mines.
The company's steel plant having a capacity of around five million tonnes is located at
Jamshedpur in Jharkhand. Additionally, the company has a production facility in
Jamshedpur which manufactures welded steel tubes. The company also has a ferro
chrome plant in Orissa, bearings plant in West Bengal and wire manufacturing facilities
in Maharashtra and Karnataka
Tata Steel acquired Europe's second largest steel producer, Corus in April 2007 for USD
13.8 billion. This acquisition makes Tata Steel the world's fifth largest steel producer. The
company is targeting a 30 million tonne capacity by 2015.
272
273
The Company had been given the accreditation of ISO 9001 : 2000. M/s. ISOQAR are the
certifying body for the above accreditation.
274
Company
Mar 2003
Mar 2004
Mar 2005
Mar 2006
Mar 2007
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
Alembic Limited
566.98
614.7
572.98
666.45
722.58
1551.97
1457.85
1702.53
1623.39
1850.47
196.11
210.89
246.42
293.68
324.2
439.32
618.91
800.42
620.45
458.27
527.62
892.39
1531.4
669.64
771.24
949.9
1121.83
1326.78
827.25
885.28
1006.02
1149.97
82.13
84.62
97.88
92.14
97.17
181.78
187.7
322.57
507.74
841.92
911.71
987.82
1092.28
1237.2
58.49
67
90.53
114.54
128.48
1466.38
1555.05
1897.76
2284.5
2961.32
5426.8
6136.2
7211.85
7661.08
9624.18
763.32
812.46
1048.22
1095.21
1232.66
19.2
22.94
15.58
25.42
23.79
J B Chemicals Limited
299.04
320.98
377.27
480.99
547.1
262.66
332.44
397.45
452.02
512.1
8776.29
9894.52
13378.1
15029.03
17971.31
395.04
472.58
477.48
572.97
35283.51
33086.16
46850.37
49797.47
59686.9
287.33
273.57
339.16
548.68
842.95
1511
1915.55
2925.18
4794.71
8058.26
789.83
892.89
1044.37
1353.02
1722.14
9788.49
11917.88
15867.62
17132.94
19771.19
Transpek Limited
44.88
61.67
74.15
86.1
88.92
97.39
115.45
112.48
117.28
126.46
133.51
211.57
300.15
485.08
5192.69
7278.44
10264.1
13758.5
Hipolin Limited
L&T Limited
Lanxess ABS Limited
ONGC Limited
Panacea Biotech Limited
Siemens Limited
Voltamp Limited
Wipro Limited
4050.03
275
Company
Mar 2003
Mar 2004
Mar 2005
Mar 2006
Mar 2007
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
Alembic Limited
363.28
439.17
501.62
527.15
565.29
2046.71
2080.83
2213.4
2271.83
2888.66
64.66
68.13
74.3
79.37
75.06
189.87
198.99
219.67
334.08
586.96
1278.64
2508.43
3202.25
134.65
157.34
200.46
237.31
258.65
335.59
371.1
425.04
512.39
46.54
64.79
76.1
88.23
87.99
147.57
150.35
173.24
213.38
251.11
491.22
504.64
517.74
528.23
38.62
40.29
48.75
50.34
51.96
GNFC Limited
2096.5
2090.57
2128.22
2177.95
2702
5600.2
5807.19
6056.71
6420.52
7977.65
1607.82
1614.13
1669.21
1869.23
2024.18
9.89
9.94
10.06
10.58
10.42
143.55
184.86
197.58
219.6
305.77
138.8
148.37
154.64
181.74
209.95
6304.99
1983.9
2100.89
2582.13
3340.59
250.49
263.12
276.65
283.49
58477.74
66192.61
97655.28
81249.08
89832.12
128.11
148.22
191.3
304.78
506.39
Siemens Limited
552.49
552.33
559.37
801.46
963.43
407.73
536.15
659.99
775.06
870.61
12393.79
13269.47
14957.73
16470.71
18426.52
Transpek Limited
65.49
72.54
64.71
78.02
92.63
25.65
30.31
31.92
32.21
35.26
11.81
15.14
18.09
24.25
1473.39
2013.73
2976.9
4225.4
Voltamp Limited
Wipro Limited
1256.55
276
Company
Mar 2003
Mar 2004
Mar 2005
Mar 2006
Mar 2007
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
Alembic Limited
307.72
377.97
383.37
393.19
381.2
1274.92
1306.39
1369.72
1458.36
1415.07
39.44
41.93
45.11
44.28
40.62
36.94
37.72
35.01
212.41
327.15
501.54
967.36
2019.93
72.01
81.94
101.93
126.76
141.64
263.14
277.33
306.87
332.01
39.99
56.93
66.4
78.3
78.5
115.96
119.18
138.94
165.39
201.22
302.79
306.36
283.05
290.89
24.35
24.88
32.25
33.13
34.79
GNFC Limited
1958.42
1945.24
1924.54
1991.55
2451.9
4538.67
4711.04
4858.76
5046.04
5520.45
1508.08
1513.07
1535.28
1575.2
1800.55
6.98
7.04
7.09
7.27
7.05
79.94
107.75
112.16
119.25
162.62
104.81
110.37
118.33
126.63
154.28
L&T Limited
4491.8
1006.06
1298.76
1442.27
1806.86
206.39
209.71
228.5
235.79
54636.3
62120.38
89194.72
72824.98
78775.52
35.76
77.41
89.18
112.05
219.56
224.63
241.51
237.34
295.63
410.06
201.4
293.75
381.43
481.32
571.27
10923.64
11202.27
11673.64
13531.96
13943.32
Transpek Limited
58.02
61.89
48.93
59.78
71.52
22.82
27.23
28.81
29.01
32.16
7.02
9.81
11.28
12.89
731.86
950.26
1345.2
1765.3
Hipolin Limited
J B Chemicals Limited
ONGC Limited
Panacea Biotech Limited
Siemens Limited
Voltamp Limited
Wipro Limited
681.55
277
Company
Mar 2003
Mar 2004
Mar 2005
Mar 2006
Mar 2007
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
Alembic Limited
31.52
31.26
52.04
78.52
70.68
129.33
96.75
127.35
127.16
119.56
24.51
25.75
43.06
48.74
33.77
23.1
50.56
72.04
6.21
28.35
61.02
140.44
191.44
33.42
44.03
52.12
70.29
83.07
45.65
46.21
45.96
68.81
4.97
7.42
8.75
8.24
8.68
1.73
2.17
9.79
27.92
54.89
76.35
73.16
107.15
126.93
2.37
6.21
7.61
12.22
12.09
84.72
116.91
224.02
294.72
326.47
367.58
779.26
885.71
863.21
1535.81
28.04
63.15
144.28
197.97
186.56
0.21
0.35
0.48
0.34
0.03
J B Chemicals Limited
48.54
51.04
59.15
70.93
71.02
18.28
30.65
37.75
50.55
L&T Limited
433.1
532.75
983.85
1011.6
25.34
38.83
16.28
27.08
10529.32
8664.43
12983.05
14430.78
15642.92
21.42
16.45
30.07
60.94
146.81
Siemens Limited
139.38
151.37
254.75
360.11
596.54
231.41
240.6
306.46
461.29
628.93
1012.31
1746.22
3474.16
3506.38
4222.15
-3.1
2.55
5.13
5.02
4.65
-0.02
-0.92
0.4
0.27
0.29
9.97
14.97
23.02
39.56
914.88
1494.82
2020.5
2842.1
ONGC Limited
Panacea Biotech Limited
Transpek Limited
Vadilal Enterprises Limited
Voltamp Limited
Wipro Limited
813.23
278
1402.23
Company
Alembic Limited
Mar 2003
Mar 2004
Mar 2005
Mar 2006
Mar 2007
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
12 mths
67.12
71.76
98.44
107.48
137.69
526.15
564.53
638.77
705.15
919.44
94.3
130.02
164.49
161.3
141.43
707.6
747.45
1097.93
1254.06
508.84
575.99
660.53
703.9
13261.54
13933.92
16695.61
19257.36
230.69
389.68
412.17
534.23
197.4
246.8
340.47
537.49
745.31
39.41
42.43
46.54
48.88
52.51
11524.06
8952.33
11003.24
13214.11
17388.32
6606.89
7308.79
8094.34
8855.59
11260.87
GNFC Limited
145.89
167.44
178.79
243.06
211.09
239.82
279.49
347.7
277.81
365.4
320.27
385.85
Hipolin Limited
4067.5
5286.49
6664.11
9508.3
13327.2
69025.7
80321.77
94942.76
114334.39
136872.52
88.49
84.23
80.04
95.07
103.82
250.45
369.39
572.98
1295.35
3412.44
294.68
357.9
412.83
507.35
706.36
ONGC Limited
2654.8
2957.74
3239.41
3674.54
3787.49
1587.98
1557.05
1472.27
1651.82
1829.53
1549.6
1945.3
2825.58
4430.86
5800.32
871.6
1436.66
3229.5
3606.72
3871.55
2105.31
2112.94
2311.96
2496.3
3384.88
303.7
357.32
436.2
528.14
632.16
296.29
441.77
473.86
1016.51
1041.36
17
17.3
16.86
16.04
14.93
60.44
92.66
121.33
170.7
J B Chemicals Limited
KSB Pumps Limited
L&T Limited
Transpek Limited
Vadilal Enterprises Limited
Voltamp Limited
Wipro Limited
279
32095.71