Election 2014
SENSEX NIFTY
Moneycontrol.com India | Notes to Account > Textiles - Spinning - Cotton Blended > Notes to Account from Punjab Fibres - BSE: 514179, NSE: N.A
YOU ARE HERE > MONEYCONTROL > MARKETS > TEXTILES - SPINNING - COTTON BLENDED > NOTES TO ACCOUNTS - Punjab Fibres
Punjab Fibres
BSE: 514179|SECTOR: Textiles - Spinning - Cotton Blended
SET ALERT
|
ADD TO PORTFOLIO
|
WATCHLIST
Punjab Fibres is not traded in the last 30 days
Punjab Fibres is not listed on NSE
Mar 07
Notes to Accounts Year End : Mar '09
1. Contingent liabilities not provided for in the books of account of
 the company :
 
 i) Value of capital contracts remaining to be executed (net of
 advances) is Rs.3.81 lakhs (previous year Rs.3.81 lakhs).
 
 ii) Claims lodged by some of the vendors of the land for enhancement of
 compensation have been decided in favour of the company during the year
 under review.
 
 iii) Claims in respect of salary etc. for the two terminated employees
 not acknowledged as debt by the Company as the amount is indeterminate.
 The matter is pending in the Labour Court.
 
 iv) Certain cases of employees claiming wages, salaries, gratuity etc.
 are sub-judice and shall be accounted for on cash basis.
 
 v) The demand of Rs.1,1 7,13,520/- along with penalty as raised by the
 Directorate General of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi had
 been set aside by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate
 Tribunal (CEGAT). However, an appeal was filed by the Commissioner,
 Customs & Central Excise, Noida against the CEGAT''s said order in the
 Hon''ble High Court at Delhi and the case is pending.
 
 vi) The Regional PF Commissioner, Meerut has raised a demand for
 Rs.30,71,259/- towards dues for the period from March, 1990 to March,
 1993. The said demand pertains to infancy period and is being contested
 by the Company before the Allahabad High Court.
 
 vii) Due to inadequacy of funds the Company was unable to honour two
 cheques for an aggregate of Rs.25,000/- each issued to M/s. Milan Goods
 Transport Corporation, Nagda (M.P.). The party had initiated legal
 proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1861.
 
 viii) Two cheques for Rs.30,00,000/- each issued to M/s. N.B.
 International, Kolkata towards security against purchase of raw
 materials on company''s behalf, had been illegally presented by them for
 payment and had been returned unpaid. The party has initiated legal
 proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1861. One of the
 cases has been dismissed on 1 7.02.2009 and the other is being defended
 appropriately.
 
 ix) a) The Sales Tax Department, Noida had raised a demand of
 Rs.7,38,860/- for the year 2002-03. The said demand included an amount
 of Rs.7,32,700/- which had arisen for non-issuance of Form H and the
 relevant pre-export documents by M/s. N.B.  International, Kolkata
 pertaining to the company''s sale of merchant exports of Rs.73,27,000/-.
 Due to dispute with the party, no adjustments have been made in the
 books of accounts.
 
 The company being a sick industrial company, the recovery of above
 demand of Rs.7,38,860/- has been stayed by the Hon''ble Board for
 Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for the time being.
 
 b) The Sales Tax Department, Noida has raised a demand of Rs.4,78,334/-
 for the year 2003-04. The said demand includes an amount of
 Rs.3,95,112/- which has arisen for non-issuance of Form H and the
 relevant pre-export documents by M/s. N.B.  International, Kolkata
 pertaining to the company''s sale of merchant exports of Rs.39,51,121/-.
 The said demand of Rs.4,78,334/- further includes an amount of
 Rs.70,523/- which has arisen for non-issuance of Form F by the Sales
 Tax Department, Kolkata against stock-transfer of goods by the company
 valuing Rs.7,05,234/-. Due to dispute with the party, no adjustments
 have been made in the books of accounts.
 
 The company being a sick industrial company, the recovery of above
 demand of Rs.4,78,334/- has been stayed by the Hon''ble Board for
 Industrial and Financial Reconstruction for the time being.
 
 c) The Sales Tax Department, Noida had raised a demand of
 Rs.74,79,389/- for the year 1997-98 which, upon an appeal by the
 Company, had been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales
 Tax Department, Noida vide order dated 21.10.2000. However, the appeal
 preferred by the Department before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Noida
 against the said order dated 21.10.2000 had been decided whereby the
 case was remanded to the Sales Tax Department, Noida and thereafter the
 demand was confirmed vide its ex-parte order dated 26.07.2008. The
 Company again preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner
 (Appeals) 2nd, Commercial Tax, Noida and the case has been decided on
 10.02.2009 whereby the entire demand stands withdrawan.
 
 d) The Sales Tax Department, Greater Noida had proceeded ex-parte
 assessment for the year 2004-05 and raised a demand of Rs.5,03,495/-
 towards sales tax dues and Rs.15,10,484/- towards penalty thereon. The
 Company has filed an appeal against the said assessment which was
 dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) 2nd, Commercial Tax,
 Noida. The company has preferred an appeal against the said dismissal
 before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the same is pending. Meanwhile, upon
 an applciation made by the Company, the Appellate Authority for
 Industrial & Financial Reconstruction has restrained the Sales Tax
 Department to proceed with the threatened recovery of said penalty by
 way of attachment/auction of company''s assets for the time being.
 
 e) The Sales Tax Department, Noida had raised a demand of
 Rs.32,13,236/- for the year 1998-99 which, upon an appeal by the
 Company, had been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales
 Tax Department, Noida vide order dated 21.05.2001. However, the appeal
 preferred by the Department before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Noida
 against the said order dated 21.05.2005 has been decided on 15.12.2008
 whereby the said appeal stands dismissed.
 
 x) The Employees'' State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh has initiated
 legal proceedings under the provisions of Employees'' State Insurance
 Act, 1948 for recovery of arrears of their dues. The company has since
 paid to the ESI Corporation the entire outstanding amount of employees''
 share aggregating to Rs.3,46,536/-. The complaint cases filed by the
 Department were decided in favour of the company by the Sub-Divisional
 Judicial Magistrate on 09.08.2006 and 12.05.2007. The Department,
 however, preferred an appeal against the said order dated 12.05.2007
 before the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh which
 has also been dismissed on 04.12.2008.
 
 xi) The Provident Fund Organization, Noida has initiated legal
 proceedings under the provisions of Employees'' Provident Fund & Misc.
 Provisions Act, 1952 for recovery of Rs. 12,06,147/- being amount of
 Employees'' contributions for the period June, 2001 to March, 2003. The
 company has paid the amount of Rs. 12,06,147/- being the employees''
 contributions and moved the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court for quashing
 of the said legal proceedings and the same is pending decision.
 
 xii) a) The Punjab State Electricity Board, Ropar (PSEB) had initiated
 legal proceedings for recovery of Rs.22,80,338/- as principal amount on
 account of energy charges and Rs.9,57,742/- as interest thereon @ 18%
 p.a. for the period from 20.05.2003 to 19.09.2005 with future interest
 for the period thereafter. The case is pending and being defended
 appropriately.
 
 b) Consequent upon threats from PSEB to dismantle/remove the feeder
 line at company''s plant at Village Rail Majra, Punjab, a temporary
 injunction has been granted by the Court of Law against suit filed by
 the Company in this behalf and the PSEB authorities have been
 restrained from dismantling the said independent feeder
 line/connection, pipes, wires, poles etc. which had been earlier
 sanctioned and laid at the cost of the company. The case is pending and
 being pursued appropriately.
 
 c) Despite temporary injunction granted by the Court of Law, the PSEB
 had removed certain pipes, wires, poles etc.pertaining to the Company''s
 independent feeder line/connection which compelled the Company to file
 another case seeking directions for restoration of the said independent
 feeder line/connection and the same is pending.
 
 xiii) The District Provident Fund Officer, Hoshiarpur had filed 8
 complaint cases in the Court of Law for recovery of arrears of PF dues.
 Prior to the initiation of such legal proceedings, the company had
 submitted a proposal to the PF authorities for settlement of such dues
 but the same was not responded by them. These complaint cases were
 decided on 24.01.2009 against the company and appeals there against have
 been preferred before the District & Sessions Judge, Saheed Bhagat
 Singh Nagar which are pending decision.
 
 xiv) a) The Employees'' Provident Fund Organization, Jalandhar (EPFO)
 had moved a petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court at
 Chandigarh challenging the Order dated 21.04.2005 passed by the
 Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR)
 restraining the EPFO from carrying out sale of assets to recover their
 alleged dues. The case is pending and being defended appropriately.
 
 b) The Employees'' Provident Fund Organization, Jalandhar (EPFO) had
 again issued a notice dated 31.03.2008 threatening to sell the
 Company''s assets at Village Rail Majra, Punjab for recovery of their
 alledged dues amounting to Rs.1,10,85,723/-.  Upon an application made
 by the Company, the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial
 Reconstruction, vide order dated 01.05.2008, has restrained the said
 EPFO from carrying out sale of assets for the time being.
 
 xv) a) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had raised a
 demand of Rs.21,53,094/- with penalty of the equivalent amount and
 interest thereon pertaining to the period June, 1995 to July, 1998. The
 Company had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control)
 Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) against the said demand and deposited an
 amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under protest. The case had been decided in
 favour of the Company subject to payment of nominal excise duly payable
 on manufacture of cotton yarn which remained to be quantified by the
 concerned authorities. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Chandigarh has filed an appeal along with an application for
 condonation of delay before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India against
 the order of the CEGAT and the case was dismissed on 16.07.2008 for
 non- prosecutions. The Department has, however, moved an applciation
 for restoration of the appral and the case is pending decision.
 
 b) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had also raised a
 demand of Rs.4,48,964.80/- and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- pertaining to
 the period August, 1998 to February, 2000. Subsequently, the said
 demand had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central
 Excise, Chandigarh in the manner similar to the decision of CEGAT
 pertaining to the immediate preceding period. However, the appeal filed
 thereafter before the CEGAT by the Commissioner of Central Excise,
 Chandigarh against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals),
 Central Excise, Chandigarh, had also been dismissed. The appeal against
 the said dismissal order of the CEGAT filed by the Commissioner of
 Central Excise, Chandigarh before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India
 stands tagged with their earlier appeal for the immediate preceding
 period as referred to hereinabove and the case was dismissed on
 16.07.2008 for non-prosecurtion. The appellants are understood to have
 been instructed by the court to file restoration application and the
 case is pending.
 
 c) The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Noida had issued a
 Show Cause Notice raising a demand of Rs.1,60,05,397/- along with
 penalty and interest thereon, towards differential excise duty for the
 period from 01.08.2000 to 18.02.2003. Reply to the Show Cause Notice
 had since been filed and the case is being defended appropriately.
 
 d) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh had issued a Show
 Cause Notice raising a demand of Rs. 1,27,14,116.12 along with penalty
 and interest thereon, towards differential excise duty for the year
 2000-01 and 2001-02. Reply to the Show Cause Notice had since been
 filed and the case is being defended appropriately.
 
 2. i) a) Term loans from Financial Institutions are secured by a first
 mortgage of all immovable properties, both present and future,
 pertaining to company''s plant at (i) Village Rail Majra, Pb. (Unit-I)
 and; (ii) B-2, Phase-II, Surajpur Indl. Area, U.P. (Unit-II) and a
 charge by way of hypothecation of all moveable assets of the aforesaid
 units subject, however, to prior charge on moveables created in favour
 of the bankers for securing working capital finance. The loans are
 further guaranteed by the Managing Director and the then Whole-time
 Director of the Company.
 
 b) Financial Institutions have the right to exercise option for
 conversion of a part of their loans into equity share capital of the
 company, at par.
 
 c) During the year 1998-99 the Company entered into a One-Time
 Settlement with the Financial Institutions for clearance of their total
 outstanding dues. In terms of the settlement, the principal loan amount
 along with 50% of the unpaid interest accrued up to 31.12.1998
 calculated at simple rate of interest was payable and was accordingly
 provided in the books of account. No further interest in addition to
 the above was payable up to completion of all the installments in full
 and final.  However, on immediate receipt and encashment of the first
 installment of Rs.100 lakhs, the Financial Institutions proceeded to
 unilaterally modify the terms of settlement and on being protested,
 revoked the agreement. The Company forthwith conveyed its
 non-acceptance to this unilateral and arbitrary act of the Institutions
 and has since adjusted the above said payment against the principal
 loan amount outstanding in company''s books of account. In view of the
 aforesaid no provision on account of interest is made.
 
 The losses are understated to the extent aforementioned.
 
 ii) Cash credit facilities from banks are secured by hypothecation of
 stock of raw materials, stock-in-process, finished goods, stores &
 spares and book debts. These are further secured by a second charge on
 fixed assets in respect of Unit-II at Surajpur (U.P.) and third charge
 on fixed assets in respect of Unit-I at Rail Majra (Pb.) in addition to
 personal guarantees of the Managing Director and the then Whole-Time
 Director.
 
 iii) Interest free loans from the Director of Industries (Pb.) are
 secured by second charge on land, buildings and plant & machinery at
 company''s works at Village Rail Majra (Pb).
 
 iv) Interest on the undernoted is not provided in books of account due
 to inadequacy of profit and the company having become sick under the
 provisions of SICA envisaging relief and concessions including waiver
 of interest in restructuring/rehabilitation scheme:-
 
 a) Rs.2318.09 lakhs (previous year Rs.2116.24 lakhs) calculated on the
 basis of simple document rate of interest on the principal amount of
 loans from Financial Institutions.
 
 b) Rs.2575.68 lakhs (previous year Rs.2317.39 lakhs) calculated at
 simple rate of interest on the principal amount of Cash Credit Loans
 from Banks and;
 
 c) Rs.86.40 lakhs (previous year Rs.77.76 lakhs) calculated at simple
 rate of interest on principal amount of Interest Free Loans from the
 Director of Industries, Punjab.
 
 The losses are understated to the extent aforementioned.
 
 v) Similarly, interest is not provided on loans from the Promoters &
 their Associates due to inadequacy of profit. The same amounts to
 Rs.8028.78 lakhs (previous year Rs.6511.35 lakhs) calculated at the
 weighted average rate of interest on institutional loans compounded on
 quarterly rest basis. This is as per the terms of sanction stipulated
 by IFCI along with other participating institutions.
 
 The losses are understated to the extent aforementioned.
 
 vi) Interest and damages on the undernoted are not provided in books of
 account due to inadequacy of profit and the company having become sick
 under the provisions of SICA envisaging relief and concessions
 including waiver of interest and damages in
 restructuring/rehabilitation scheme:-
 
 a) Rs.195.71 lakhs towards interest and Rs.383.92 lakhs towards damages
 by way of penalty on arrears of provident fund dues, and
 
 b) Rs.59.24 lakhs towards interest and Rs.55.53 lakhs towards damages
 on arrears of ESI dues.
 
 The losses are understated to the extent aforementioned.
 
 3. The Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Patiala had initiated suo
 moto revisional proceedings against the Company for the assessment
 years 1982-83 to 1984-85 and raised demand of Rs.18.53 lakhs approx.
 towards purchase tax @ 4% along with interest and penalties instead of
 concessional rate of 2% already assessed and paid. Upon dismissal of
 Company''s revision petitions by the Sales Tax Tribunal, it moved the
 Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the said revisional proceedings
 of the Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Patiala were set aside.
 Subsequently the State of Punjab had filed Special Leave Petitions in
 the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India which were dismissed in default. The
 State of Punjab had, however, subsequently moved an application for
 restoration of said appeals which had been admitted and the case was
 decided against the company. The company had moved a Review Petition
 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India which had been decided
 against the company during the year 2005-06. However, the company has
 not made any provision for this liability including interest/penalties
 thereon. As such the losses are understated to that extent. The amount
 of this liability is unascertainable as the company has not received
 any firm demand from the authorities.
 
 4. The company has filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service
 Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against the order of the Commissioner
 (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh in respect of demand of unpaid
 excise duty amounting to Rs.13,19,872/-and penalty thereon of the
 equivalent amount and the case had been decided against the Company.
 The company has not made any provision for Rs.13,19,872/- on account of
 penalty on the excise duty payable amounting to Rs. 15,78,453/- and
 interest thereon. As such the losses are understated to that extent.
 
 5. Based on independent reports by approved valuers, land, buildings
 and plant & machinery including electrical fittings at Works were
 revalued during 1984-85, 1989-90 1994-95, 1997-98 and 2000-2001. The
 surplus arising on revaluation was credited to the ''Capital
 Revaluation Reserve''. The incremental annual differential depreciation
 of the current year on account of such revaluation amounting to Rs.1
 7,62,001 /- (previous year Rs.27,60,647/-) has been charged to the
 Profit & Loss Account as per the requirement of Accounting Standard 5
 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
 
 6. Advances recoverable in cash or in kind in schedule 9 of loans &
 advances include:
 
 i) the suit of the Company against illegal assessment/demand of
 Rs.30,94,867/- raised by the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
 (UPSEB) towards arrears of electricity charges, partly decreed in
 favour of the Company during 1997-98. As the Court has disallowed
 refund of the deposit of Rs.7,90,042/- (Previous year Rs.7,90,042/-)
 made under protest with UPSEB, the Company has filed an appeal in the
 Allahabad High Court against the said order of the Distt. Court which
 is pending decision. However, the same has been shown under the head
 ''Advances Recoverable'' in the Schedule of ''Current Assets, Loans and
 Advances''.
 
 ii) the material issued amounting to Rs.10,24,990/- to M/s. Banwari Lal
 Suresh Kumar, Ex-building Contractor in the year 1979-80 and 1980-81.
 The company''s appeal in the Court of Distt. Session Judge, Chandigarh
 against the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh granting a
 decree for compensation against damages suit filed by the contractor
 for an amount of Rs.15,20,580/- in their favour along with interest
 till the date of payment, was dismissed and consequently the company
 filed an appeal in the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
 Chandigarh. The case was admitted subject to payment of Rs.10.50 lakhs
 against adequate security stipulated to be furnished by the recipient.
 The Company having become sick under the provisions of the Sick
 Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, it has filed an
 application in the Court of Sub- Judge, 1st Judge, Chandigarh for stay
 of recovery proceedings of the aforesaid amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs.
 Matter being sub-judice, no adjustment has been made in the books of
 account. As such the losses are understated to that extent.
 
 iii) As a result of fire that broke out at Surajpur Plant twice during
 2004-05, Buildings and Plant & Machinery were damaged for which
 necessary claims had been filed with the National Insurance Company
 Ltd. The company has protested unilateral settlement of these claims by
 the insurance company and moved a complaint each before the District
 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes
 Redressal Commission both at Chandigarh. The complaint before the State
 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has since been decided in favour
 of the company but the Insurance company has preferred an appeal before
 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which is pending
 decision. Further, the case before the District Consumer Disputes
 Redressal Forum has also been decided in favour of the company but the
 Insurance company has preferred an appeal before the State Consumer
 Disputes Redressal Commission which is pending decision. Necessary
 adjustments in the books of account in respect of these claims will be
 made when the cases are finally decided.
 
 7. i) The sales tax liability has been provided for as per returns
 filed. The additional liability, if any, shall be provided for as and
 when assessments are completed. In view of the losses in the company no
 provision of income tax has been made.
 
 ii) The sales tax authorities have raised demands and penalties
 amounting to Rs.19,15,503/- (previous year Rs.19,15,503/-) against
 which an amount of Rs.43,000/- (previous year Rs.43,000/-) had been
 deposited by the company in the previous years under protest.  The same
 is shown as recoverable in the Schedule of ''Current Assets, Loans and
 Advances'' as the company has disputed the said demands and penalties.
 
 iii) The income tax assessment of the Company has been completed up to
 the assessment year 2007-08. The total demand raised by the Income Tax
 Department up to the said assessment year has been paid. The amount so
 paid is included in Income Tax Payments Pending Adjustments in Schedule
 9 of Loans & Advances. Additions made by the Assessing Officer have
 been disputed in Appeals and adjustment will be made at the time of
 final settlement.
 
 iv) The Company had paid excise duty of Rs.12,335/- under protest under
 Rule 233-B of the Central Excise Rules during the earlier years and the
 matter is pending. The amount has been shown as recoverable in the
 Schedule of ''Current Assets, Loans and Advances''.
 
 8. The debit and credit balances in the accounts of suppliers,
 customers and others are subject to confirmation and reconciliation.
 
 9. The company has been declared as a sick industrial company under
 Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Hon''ble
 Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction vide its Order dated
 06.11.2006 with directions to the Operating Agency (IDBI) to prepare a
 rehabilitation/revival scheme for the company.
 
 10. The company had entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
 with Rayat Educational & Research Trust (Regd.) for sale of surplus
 land at company''s plant at Rail Majra, Punjab and received a sum of
 Rs.10.00 lakhs which has been shown as an advance in the Schedule of
 ''Current Liabilities and Provisions''. The MOU was subject to specific
 approval of the secured lenders. As the secured lenders did not approve
 of the said sale of surplus land, the party continued insisting for
 renewal of the MOU time and again and thereafter proceeded to file a
 suit for permanent injunction before the Courts at Balachaur, Punjab.
 The case was contested by the company when the same was dismissed with
 directions to refer it to the Arbitrator. Thereafter arbitration
 proceedings were initiated by the party and the matter is pending
 before the Sole Arbitrator.
 
 11. In accordance with AS - 22 on ''Deferred Taxes'' issued by the ICAI,
 there is no deferred tax liability as the depreciation allowable under
 the Income Tax Act, 1961 is less than the amount of depreciation
 charged in the books of account. As such, there is a deferred tax asset
 which has not been recognized because the company being a sick
 industrial company, has huge accumulated losses and the chances of its
 recovery in future are bleak.
 
 12. The manufacturing activities at company''s plants remained suspended
 during the year under review. Hence, there are no reportable segments
 as per AS-1 7 issued by the ICAI on segment accounting.
 
 13. In the absence of information from the vendors with regards to
 their registration (filing of memorandum) under The Micro, Small Medium
 Enterprises Development Act, 2006, no disclosure has been made in this
 regard.
 
 14. Since a minimum remuneration as approved by the members has been
 paid to the Managing Director, computation of net profit under Section
 349 of the Companies Act, 1956, in the absence of profits, has not been
 worked out.
 
 15. The figures for the previous year have been regrouped and
 rearranged wherever found necessary to make them comparable with those
 of current year.
 
 16. Schedule 1 to 17 form part of the Balance Sheet and the Profit &
 Loss Account and have been duly authenticated.
 
 17. In the opinion of the Board, the current assets, loans and advances
 unless specified otherwise, if realized in the ordinary course of
 business, have the value atleast equal to the amount of which they are
 stated in the Balance Sheet. The provisions for all the known
 liabilities are adequate and not in excess of the amount considered
 reasonably necessary.
Source : Dion Global Solutions Limited
Quick Links for punjabfibres
Explore Moneycontrol
Stocks     A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | Others
Mutual Funds     A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
Copyright © e-Eighteen.com Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduction of news articles, photos, videos or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of moneycontrol.com is prohibited.