905 Not only the Corporate Governance issues pointed out by Mr. N.R. Narayana Murthy are to be addressed, but also at macro level Government has to conduct indepth studies of at least half of Corporates in India

There are some similarities and some variances between what is happening in the Board Rooms of Infosys and the Tata Group. We need not lay undue emphasis on differences among Board Members about matters relating to the Managements of their respective Companies. Reason: Differences are natural, and are bound to be there. Like the Meetings of India's Union Cabinet, or the Cabinets of States like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana State, Tamil Nadu, if every thing is conducted without arguments, dissent, some emotional outbursts, with bent heads, knelt knees, UNANIMOUSLY, then there must be something wrong. Whether it is in political democracies, or in Corporate Democracies, such blind-fold meetings can lead to incalculable damage and harm. Such blind-fold, dumb-fold meetings, when conducted in Corporate Bodies, can lead even to financial collapse of Companies. Such blind-fold, dumb-fold meetings, when conducted in Executive Bodies such as Cabinets, Legislatures, Advisory Councils of countries can lead to dictatorships and tyrannies, and finally lead to disintegration of countries.

Here is a link to HIndusthan Times, dated 14th Feb. 2017, which contains some observations made by Shri R. Seshasayee, the Chairman of Infosys, about 'differences' among Board Members, which he terms as "not conflict", but as "convergence". Click to go to Hindusthan Times, http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/infosys-management-vs-narayana-murthy-is-the-conflict-really-over/story-2czSEEwLX45xLapMixs4gO.html. Some of the observations:--

“...Something like this doesn’t happen again.”

"...I shall not quit unless asked by the board and the shareholders to do so. ..."

"...the Bansal episode has taught the board to insert severance details in contracts and not be subjective about them. Bansal, was eventually paid Rs. 5 crore as severance pay, not the previously agreed-upon Rs. 17 crore. It was not “hush” money to get Bansal to keep the peace. ..."

"...Sikka's salary has been approved by shareholders. ...".

"... The Board continues to address issues all stakeholders, including ones that the founders have, within the overall framework of the fiduciary responsibility it has to all shareholders. ...".

"...Board will treat the promoters just as it does 'any other shareholders' ...".

Here is a report which contains the observations of the Shri N.R. Narayana Murthy, one of the top five Founders of Infosys: Click to go to EconomicTimes.IndiaTimes,com to study what Mr. Narayana Murthy is reported to have said.

"...There is no let-up in my demand that the board of India’s second-largest software company satisfactorily address the issues of poor corporate governance pinpointed by me last week, striking a firm stance in what looks set to be a fractious corporate battle. ..."
“No, I have not withdrawn my concern,”

"...They (issues and concerns) have to be addressed properly by the board, and full transparency should be given and people responsible should become accountable...".

"...They are all good-intentioned people of high integrity, but obviously being human even good people sometimes make mistakes, this is one such case, ..."

"...But good leadership demands that they listen to all concerned shareholders, re-evaluate their decision and take corrective action. I hope they take corrective action soon and improve governance for a better future for the company..."

"...Such payments raise doubts whether the company is using such payments as hush money to hide something...".

Shri Balakrishnan: "... If investigations have proved there was nothing wrong, then why stop? Someone has to own this up. The chairman should take responsibility. ..."

"...Infosys board be recast with “some good people” like Marti Subrahmanyam. It should also induct unnamed former Infoscions, schooled in the Infosys values ...”.

ybrao-a-donkey's perceptions, which are not intended to be imposed on others

Out of the top four Info Giants in India of those days (TCS, Infosys, Wipro, Satyam Computers), the last i.e. Satyam Computers made an ignominous exit, as fudging of accounts by the then Satyam Management led by Shri Ramalinga Raju blew up, sending him to Jail. The remaining three IT Giants maintain a public profile which claim "honesty and truthfulness". While nobody knows what happens in those remaining Top Three Companies, and people go by revealed Financial Statements and Data, as certified by their Company Auditors.

One thing is definite. Since the 2008 Sub-Prime Lending Crisis which engulfed U.S.A. and the Wall Street, the Business Environment for Indian IT Companies has also undergone some unfavourable changes. In tune with those unfavourable changes, the three IT Companies ought to have made substantial provisions for unforeseen losses, but it is not clear to what extent they have made provisions.

The five top promoters of the Infosys (Sarvashri N.R. Narayana Murthy, Nandan Nilekani, SD Shibulal, Kris Gopalakrishnan and K Dinesh, seem to have withdrawn a major part of their investments from Infosys. They are said to hold, all of them together, about 12.75% stake in the Company. It can also be observed that , when the going is good, when the Business Environment is favorable, everybody will come forward to work as Chairman, CEO, CFO, so that they can take credit for the good results. But, when there is a dwindling trend of fortunes, nobody will come forward; Those who are at the helm, may try to step down, and chose either to retire, or go in search of greener pastures.

Promoters , having tasted power all-the-days when they were at the steering, after leaving the Company, because of past attachments (Sanskrit and Telugu: "vAsanAs"), may want to drive their Companies from back seat. This type of approach, reflects a type of urge "to eat the cake and have it too", exercise some authority, without match responsibility.

REPORTED SHARE-HOLDING MIX

(Approx.) Shareholding Mix of Infosys
Top Promoters: 12.75%
Foreign Institutional Investors: 39%
Insurance Companies: 11%
Mutual Funds: 7%
Foreign Non-Institutions: 17%
Public: 10%

ybdonkey always believed

In India, Private Sector Companies are NOT REALLY PRIVATE SECTOR COMPANIES. In most Companies, Promoters hold very little share-holdings, often less than 20%. But, Promoters, and their benAmIes pull the strings in the Boards, hold most Executive positions, and draw huge amounts as perquisites/remuneration/salaries. Besides, they also ensure that their kith and kin, and the Companies promoted by them, get all the supply Contracts, Distributorships, sine cure jobs in the Company.

Independent Directors, Directors representing Financial Institutions such as Mutual Funds, Insurance Companies, Foreign Institutional Investors, do not take active interest in the Management of the Company. Even when they attend BOard Meetings, they just sign the Attendance, raise one or two unimportant questions and queries for formality and ritual sake, have the dinners/lunches/refreshments, collect the gifts, receive Sitting Fees, collect Flight Tickets, and leave. In Telugu language, there is a proverb: "SingaDu addanki pOnU pOyADu, rAnU vachchADu." Approx. English: A person named "SingaDu" went to a place called "Addanki" in Prakasham Dt., of Andhra Pradesh, and came back, with no outcome. Attending Board Meetings remains just a symbolic appearance.

"... The Board continues to address issues all stakeholders, including ones that the founders have, within the overall framework of the fiduciary responsibility it has to all shareholders. ...".

"...Board will treat the promoters just as it does 'any other shareholders' ...".

These words of the Chairman, seems to suggest that promoters will be shown their place, in proportion to their 12.75% shareholdings. If the (former) Promoters try to exercise their will on the Current Management, the Chairman may try to take shelter in the Foreign Institutional Investors who have 39% shareholding, apart from trying to get support from Mutual Funds and Insurance Companies.

Though SEBI seems to have started making some inquiries into the goings on, such enquiries seem to be too little, when a lot needs to be done.

To continue adding / deleting / editing. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.

881 FINANCIAL DIARIES ARE NOT WRITTEN FOR FUN. THEY ARE NOT LOVE DIARIES. THEY SUBMIT ACCOUNTS TO OWNERS OF FUNDS.

Trigger for this particular blog post: A news report titled: "SC rejects probe into alleged Sahara-Birla payoffs to Modi", dated 11th Jan. 2017, of TribuneIndia.com. Click here to go to http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/sc-rejects-probe-into-alleged-sahara-birla-payoffs-to-modi/348980.html. With due and high respect to the wisdom of the Justices of the Supreme Court of India, we can use our freedom of expression to discuss other aspects of the issue, which might not have come to the notice of the Honorable Court. At this point of time, we have to accept the observations of the Venerable Court:

"... No democracy can survive if investigations are readily set in motion against important constitutional functionaries without there being cogent material on record. ..."

"... The process of law can be abused very easily to achieve ulterior goals if such pleas were allowed. The material provided by the petitioner in the form of random papers containing computer and diary entries, excel sheets and emails could not form the basis for registration of an FIR as these were inadmissible evidence in law. ..."

"... Some of the material contained information about payoffs in crores of rupees paid to Modi and a large number of other leaders of various political parties by the two groups, but there was nothing to show that money was actually paid to any one of them. ..."

"...Income Tax Settlement Commission had given its conclusion that the documents seized by the CBI and I-T Department during raids on the Sahara group were not genuine. ..."

"...A combined reading of the SC verdict in the hawala and Bhajan Lal cases and the I-T commission’s findings made it clear that it was not a fit case for directing investigation. ... Going by the material on record and the peculiar facts of the case, We find no case is made to direct investigation against various political functionaries and officers. The applications are found to be meritless and dismissed, ..."

ybrao-a-donkey's personal views, which are not intended to be imposed on others. This is just loud thinking.

Some names which figured in these documents:--

Sarvashri
LK Advani
Sushma Swaraj
Ravi Shankar Prasad
Mulayam Singh Yadav,
Mayawati
Lalu Prasad,
Salman Khurshid
Sheila Dikshit
Farooq Abdullah.

Apart from the PM as the then CM of Gujarat, all the above politicians whose names figured in the documents, too might have breathed a sigh of relief, owing to the Apex Court's unwillingness to order an investigation. So far so good, okay.

POLITICAL DONATIONS

Political parties need funds, for canvassing in Elections. Till some alternative arrangements, such as State Funding of Elections, are made in lieu of collection/extraction/extortion of corporate donations, political parties, whether they like it or not, howsoever clean those parties may be, including the left parties, are bound to take donations from business persons and industrialists. Reason: It is they who have money, enough money to donate, after meeting their needs. It is they who have some work or other with the Government. They have to fund all parties, because future is uncertain, and any party can come into power anywhere in India. Bulk of our voters are poor. They cannot donate. Instead, they want somebody to pay them and buy their votes.

But still, some questions linger around and pester like 'flies'. The foremost question is, assuming though the above funds have not been paid to politicians/parties, HAVE THEY AT ALL BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE CORPORATE COFFERS, i.e. THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES SHOWING 'FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES'.

Were some Cash Sales Accumulations / Cash Receipts across counters, diverted for various purposes, without depositing them into the Bank Accounts of the Companies?

Have the funds been used for non-operational purposes?

Have the funds been used
a) partly for genuine business expenses of the Company?
b) partly for personal benefit of persons controlling the Company?
c) partly for personal benefit of Officers of the Company?

There is a possibility that NO FUNDS might have been given to the political persons/parties, though their names have been mentioned in the diaries. This will be awful !!! If political parties/leaders get some funds, at least a part of the funds will trickle down to party grass-root worker level, and the voter level.

Have the withdrawals been scrutinised by Company's INTERNAL AUDITORS? If the internal auditors found any irregularities did they report the matter to the Companies' top Managements?

Have the withdrawals been scrutinised by Company Auditors, who are members of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India? If so what are the observations of the Company's External Auditors? Have they reported the matter to the Companies' Top Managements? Have they made any notes in the Statutory balance sheets of the Companies, prepared as per Companies Act?

Are the top Managements of the Companies aware of the possible embezzlement / misuse / diversion of funds? If so what action they have taken into the embezzlement?

DIFFICULTIES OF OUR COURTS

Shortage of judges
Shortage of Court Halls
Ambiguities in Laws.
Absence of INVESTIGATION APPARATUS (separate Judicial Police) under direct control of Courts.
Absence of ENFORCEMENT APPARATUS (separate Judicial Police) under direct control of courts.
(un)Willingness of some Governments to co-operate with Courts.
Judicial Corruption.

PRIMA FACIE PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES

We may have to make a flexible law, for initiating Preliminary Inquiries. Preliminary Inquiries need not be viewed with suspicion. Preliminary inquiries, can be permitted to be made without FIR. There should be no arrests. There should be no need of obtaining witnesses and statements. They should not be in the form of raids. Above all, they should not TAINT the persons, about whom inquiries are made. They should be conducted in such a way, the persons involved welcome them, and come forward to face them. These type of inquiries will be in alignment with the Judicial Philosophy of "Innocent till convicted", "Innocent person should not suffer" etc. Formal FIR will come into picture, at a far far later stage, when solid indisputable evidence emerges. That will be rare, anyway.

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Why can't Institute of Chartered Accountants of India initiate a check, whether their Members who are Auditors for Companies are properly discharging their duties? There is a possibility that Company Auditors who may be ACAs and FCAs, CFOs who may be ACAs, FCAs, may still be negligent owing to work pressure, or can even be complacent / acquiescent / oblivious of the dangers involved. Institute of Chartered Accountants should recall the experience of its Members who were at the receiving end of the Satyam Computers Fraud, and Price WaterHouse Cooper Audit Team.

SEBI

SEBI can also intervene, because, there is a possibility of diversion of funds.

RBI

RBI can intervene for a detailed check into the accounts of the Companies involved, to find out if there is diversion of Bank Loans. Even in case of non-loan Current Accounts of Companies, Banks have a FIDUCIARY responsibility to monitor where the funds withdrawn from the accounts are going. They have a duty to enquire into the nature of withdrawals, names of the payees, before passing cheques for LARGE AMOUNTS for payment.

INDIA'S PRIVATE COMPANIES HANDLE PUBLIC MONEY !!!

Though Indian Public Limited Companies do not mention "Public" in their name plates, are really PUBLIC in two ways. 1. They are owned by Public of India. 2. They handle public money. We should not have a narrow view that Indian Private Sector "Limited" Companies are Private Companies, even if they are closely held, family-held.
India's Private Limited Companies, though may have few share-holders, and are exempt from some Company Law Procedures, they too handle PUBLIC MONEY.

Thus, nothing Corporate, can really be viewed as Private Affairs. Unfortunately, they are viewed as private family affairs. Indian MPs should wake up, and they should discharge their properly, to guard PUBLIC MONIES against embezzlements. At the first instance, they should not become share-holders in the embezzlements. At the second stage, they should not be acquiescent / complacent / oblivious to embezzlement-s which MAY TAKE PLACE in Indian Corporate Bodies.

FINANCIAL DIARIES ARE NOT WRITTEN FOR FUN. THEY ARE NOT LOVE DIARIES.

Though the diaries may not be GENUINE, may not be ACCURATE, they seem to have a specific purpose. That purpose may be to show accounts PRIVATELY to THE OWNERS OF FUNDS, so that the owners can cross check with the RECIPIENTS.

To continue, and edit/delete, if necessary. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.

875 (Part 1 of 10 series) Mr. Jeremy Corbyn is right in suggesting a wage cap, but it does not solve problems comprehensively

Last time we wrote about Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labor Leader, was in our blog post No. 795 Click to study post No. 795, wherein we have provided a link for the analyses made by Mr. Nick Cohen in Spectator.com. The article's title was "LEFT HAS A HISTORY OF FOOLISHNESS" in Spectator, dated 30th July 2016. Now, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn came up with a scintillating-sparkling idea, that a wage cap (a maximum earning limit) could be placed. Here is a link to a news report of Telegraph, UK which not only contains excerpts from the speech of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, but also a link to his video speech, full text speech, comments-of-others on his speech. Some observers claimed that Mr. Corbyn's proposal as idiotic. Briefly, Mr. Corbyn's proposal says:

"...If we want to live in a more egalitarian society and fund our public services, we cannot go on creating worse levels of inequality. ..."

"...I would to like to see a maximum earnings limit, quite honestly, because I think that would be a fairer thing to do. ..."

"...We cannot set ourselves up as being a sort of grossly unequal, bargain-basement economy on the shores of Europe. ..."

"...It would be "somewhat higher" than the £138,000 I earn as an MP and Leader of the Opposition. ..." (Sky-news)

ybrao-a-donkey's personal observations, which are not intended to be imposed on others:

SELF-PRESERVATION- A BOURGEOISIE TRAIT

Mr. Corbyn, has made sure for himself that he will not lose, when a "maximum earning limit" is placed. This self-preservative precautionary condition is a bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie trait.

The proposal is good, but it will not work because, in a Capitalist System, Economies are managed by bourgeoisie. Petty bourgeoisie become only stooges and servants. Wages at top are not only arbitrarily determined, but also fixed by the promoters of businesses themselves, though sometimes in some countries, there may be stipulations such as Government's approval will be required for fat salaries of top executives.

HIGH WAGES OF BUSINESS EXECUTIVES

There is an erroneous belief among both bureaucrats and politicians world wide, that highly-paid executives can make a turn-round of loss-making businesses. The harsh reality is: A single executive, or a group of few executives, cannot turn around a business organisation, which shows a setting trend, owing to numerous reasons. Turning around, Profit-earning capacities, marketing-successes, production-successes depend on numerous factors.

HIGH EARNINGS OF SUPER-HUMAN PROFESSIONALS AMONG DOCTORS, LAWYERS, TECHNOCRATS

While some reasonable variations between "creative-dynamic-efficient-effective-result-oriented" professionals and "static-run-of-the-mill" professionals are possible and may, probably be justified, we can see abnormally huge variations among the earnings of professionals at top, at middle, and at the bottom of the earnings triangle. To appreciate this idea, some real-life examples may be given.

Thousand pages more can be written on this subject. To continue. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.

848 Govt. of India should request retiring CJI Shri T.S. Thakur to lead an Investigation Team to look into the affairs of TATA Companies and Trusts

Hon. Chief Justice of India, Shri T.S. Thakur is going to retire on 4th Jan. 2017, after completing his 65 years of age. From the manner in which he conducts/conducted the proceedings of Supreme Court of India, this blogger ybrao-a-donkey gets an impression that, for his age, he is quite energetic, and there is substantial fuel and vigor left in him both physically and emotionally. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things, that his services are used by Nation for National Benefit. We know that Mr. Narendra Modi Government is not in a mode to appoint a Lok Pal, unless it can find some one who is really ductile, malleable, and pliable. It does not mean that we should allow Shri Thakur to leave as a person whose services could not be effectually utilised by the Nation.

TATA GROUP AFFAIRS - WASHING DIRTY LINEN

Our Readers are aware that TATA Group of Companies are going through a period of stress of Corporate Governance, with the mutual accusations of Mr. Cyrus Mistry, the ousted CEO of Tata Group, and Mr. Ratan Tata, the former CEO + patriarch + de facto CEO of Tata Group. On 26th Oct. 2016, Mr. Cyrus Mistry alleged directors at India’s largest Corporate Giant of wrongfully dismissing him and warned that the Tata Group may face $18 billion in write-downs because of five unprofitable businesses he inherited. The entire Nation is enamoured and in the grip of standing in ATM queues, in an attempt to find cash for day-to-day sustenance of lives, and livelihoods. Consequently, much of what has gone in TATA Group Companies might have escaped attention of Indian Citizens. There is also a lurking danger of (I wish that it should not happen) Tata Group of Companies also going in the KingFisher and Vijay Mallya trajectory.

FACTS AND GRAY AREAS NEED DEEP INVESTIGATION

We know from history, and current affairs, that whenever there are mutual allegations, there will be some truths in the arguments of both the parties, and that there will be some gray areas which none of the two combatants may not like to touch, because in addition to the vulnerabilities of the other party, their own vulnerabilities will also come out. It will, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the goings on in the Tata Group Companies, Tata Sons, Tata Trusts are all studied in depth, by impartial persons, who are well versed in country's Business Law, as well as who have "sraddha" (sincerity and dedication) towards natural justice.

TOP TEN ITEMS WHICH CAN BE GIVEN AS TERMS OF REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT)

1. Whether any Profits & Loss accounts, Balance Sheets have been fudged.

2. Whether all the assets physically exist, and their valuation conforms to the Standards of Accounting Practices.

3. Whether there are any understatements of liabilities.

4. Indepth audit of physical existence of stocks (inventory).

5. Whether there are any breaches of Trust, in TATA TRUSTS?

6. Whether there are non-permissible Inter-Corporate Investments?

7. Whether payments made to the CEOs, Directors, Trust Members are all in conformity with the Company Law, Trust Laws, good global principles of Corporate Governance.

8. Whether there are any violations of erstwhile FERA, present FEMA, and Money Laundering Act?

9. Whether there are any present/future risks of Indian Assets of the Tata Group Companies being attached by foreign courts, to satisfy the overseas liabilities of Overseas Companies registered by Tatas abroad?

10. Whether all the loans/advances/guarantees extended by Indian Public Sector Banks are safe, and possibilities of Public Sector Banks losing their funds a) within India b) outside India.

Incomplete. To continue. सशेष. लिखने के लिये और बहुत है। جاری رکھنے اور مزید لکھنے کے لئے ఇంకా వ్రాయాల్సింది బోలెడు ఉంది.

826 (Part 2/10) of Indian Corporate Governance -Continuation of Tata Mallya discussion

This is in continuation of this blog's post No. 825 Click to go to post No. 826., wherein I have made it clear that my analyses are not about Mr. Vijay Mallya or Ratan Tata or Cyrus Mistry in particular, or about the United Breweries Group/KingFisher or the Tata Group in particular. What I wish to make clearer, is: Like their Global counterparts, most of the Institutions in India are in a mess, not only the Corporate Sector, or the Economic System, but also every other System, Sub-System. I do not wish to attribute this atrophy and latent collapse and decay to reforms such as LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation, Globalisation), because the atrophy and latent decay of INdian Economy were there even before the advent of P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister, and Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister. The duo have only accelerated the processes to make them more pronounced and visible. Probably, they might have existed even before 1937.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU AND MAHALANOBIS MODEL OF DEVELOPEMTN

By taking the Socialist path, Late Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, though unintentionally, has tried to sideline the Tatas, Birlas et al. Unfortunately Nehru did not take it up in at least 80% of its potential. He did not do it whole-heartedly, because he had to carry himself along with other Congress Stalvarts, and Regional Congress Leaders. By pioneering the advent of Public Sector in India, and endeavouring to take it to commanding heights, Mr. Nehru tried to set aside the dynastic and the dhan-terah gambling Private Sector, but he could not succeed, probably because there was a Chinese Invasion 1962, and he had to suffer premature death.

LATE LAL BAHADUR SASTRY, the second Prime Minister

His successor Late Lal Bahadur Sastry, the Second PM, did n't have time to attend to the maladministrations and mismanagements of Indian Corporate Sector, because his attention was DETRACTED by Pakisthani intrusions, invasions and the consequent 1965 Indo Pak War.

LATE INDIRA GANDHI, the third Prime Minister

The third PM, Late Indira Gandhi d/o Nehru, had all the time, but she had no will to correct the rot in Private Sector, because Congress and Opposition Parties by that time have started living on the donations of industrialists for amassing wealth and meeting election expenses. For political reasons, Ms. Gandhi went on a Nationalisation Campaign of banks, Oil Companies, Insurance Companies, sick Coal Mines, sick Textile Mills, but only to allow them to be mismanaged letter. To cover all these things, we may need 100,000 print pages, and internet pages, but all of such pages may end up to be junk because nobody will read them.

CONGRESS AND UPA

Today, the dynastic political bosses and the successors of Nehru Dynasty in Congress Party wants to claim credit for the legacy of Nehru, while they know nothing about Nehruvian Economics or they are not inclined to continuing Nehruvian Economics, in spite of knowing. I believe that they do now know what Nehruvian Economics truly is. Otherwise, why should they carry Mr. Manmohan Singh who introduced diametrically opposite and anti-Nehru policies, on their shoulders for nearly 20 years? I must say, though it may sound arrogant, that the Nehru Dynasty Congress bosses know nothing about Indian Economics.

CURRENT NDA REGIME

Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Arun Jaitley are just continuing their legacies of Mr. Manmohan Singh, and Mr. P. Chidamabaram (Former Finance Minister). They have no capabilities or desire to clean up the mess in private sector. Nor, do they have any intent to clean up the Public Sector. Their interests seem to concentrate only on four things 1) Foreign Tours 2) Beg for Foreign Investments 3) Trying to implement what their Patron Industrialists demand. 4) Dispose off Public Sector units at throw away prices.

SELECTED READINGS

IT SECTOR VIS-A-VIS / VERSUS MANUFACTURING SECTOR IN INDIA

Here, one article by Vivek Kaul, dated 15h Jan. 2016, Click to go to https://www.valueresearchonline.com/story/h2_storyview.asp?str=29976, is worth studying.

To continue. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.