CORPORATE FINANCE PROJECT

2014
Impact of firms size on
its Capital Structure
Study of Indian Refinery Industry

MA N A G E M E N T D E V E L O P M E N T I N S T I T U T E , G U R G A O N - I N D I A
Submitted By:
Group 5
Section B
NMP27 Batch
CONTENTS

Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Capital structure ........................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Defining firm size ......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research methodology ................................................................................................ 5
2 Method ................................................................................................................................ 6
3 Result ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Intra-Company ANOVA Test Results: .......................................................................... 7
3.2 Inter-Company ANOVA Test Results: .........................................................................10
3.3 Inter-Company Regression Analysis Result: ...............................................................12
4 Discussion .........................................................................................................................13
5 Limitations ..........................................................................................................................14
6 References ........................................................................................................................14
7 Appendix ............................................................................................................................15


ABSTRACT

The ModiglianiMiller theorem states that the value of the firms remains same irrespective
of what capital structure the firms are choosing. However this is subjected to few
assumptions like no corporate taxes, no transactional costs and same borrowing casts for
both individuals and corporate. These assumptions are far from reality and in fact corporate
do enough brain stormy to decide what capital structure should the firm follow. On the one
hand higher leverage reduces firms tax burden on the other hand it exposes the firm with
greater amount of risk.
Dose firm size also matter when firm is deciding that what capital structure the firm should
have? Or rather does firm size matters when a firm wants to achieve a certain Debt to
Equity ratio? Banks will be willing to give more debt at lesser cost to the firms greater in
size. This is because a bigger firm may have lesser chances to default or failure. The
capital structure of financing pattern decision is thus a significant managerial decision and
is a continuous process. The pattern of this decision may change from what it was at the
inception as compared to expanding the business. This decision is normally concerned
about the proportion of debt and equity to finance the operations of a company. How does
the debt to equity mix look like?
In this project we are analyzing the effect of firm size on its capital structure decision, and
as a sample we have take six firms of Refinery industry of India. The group constitutes
large refinery like Reliance Industries and IOCL and relatively small refinery like Essar Oil
and MRPL.

Key words: Capital Structure, Firm Size, Debt-to-Equity Ratio, Refinery

1 Introduction
In India, capital structure patterns are subject to specific industries which are also true for other parts of the world.
Usually capital- intensive manufacturing firms
seen companies like Infosys having negligible debt)
firms which employ very little long-term debt.
managerial decision and is a continuous process. The pattern of this decision may change from what it was at the
inception as compared to expanding the business.
capital structure.

1.1 Capital structure
Capital of a company can be broadly categorized into equity and debt
Equity = Equity Share Capital + preference share capital + share premium + free reserves + surplus profits
+provision for contingency +d

Debt = All borrowings from government, semi
agencies + term loans from banks, financial institutions etc + Debentures + All deferred payment liabilities


PATTERNS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE
Capital Structure with equity shares only.
subject to specific industries which are also true for other parts of the world.
intensive manufacturing firms have high debt- equity ratios as compared to service firms
seen companies like Infosys having negligible debt), mining companies and technology based manufacturing
term debt. The capital structure of financing pattern decision is a significant
managerial decision and is a continuous process. The pattern of this decision may change from what it was at the
inception as compared to expanding the business. Even for same size two different firms may choose differen
Capital of a company can be broadly categorized into equity and debt where
Equity = Equity Share Capital + preference share capital + share premium + free reserves + surplus profits
+provision for contingency +development rebate reserve.
Debt = All borrowings from government, semi-government, statutory financial corporations and other
agencies + term loans from banks, financial institutions etc + Debentures + All deferred payment liabilities

Capital Structure with equity shares only.
Debt
Equity
Capital Structure
subject to specific industries which are also true for other parts of the world.
equity ratios as compared to service firms (we have
based manufacturing
g pattern decision is a significant
managerial decision and is a continuous process. The pattern of this decision may change from what it was at the
Even for same size two different firms may choose different
Equity = Equity Share Capital + preference share capital + share premium + free reserves + surplus profits
government, statutory financial corporations and other
agencies + term loans from banks, financial institutions etc + Debentures + All deferred payment liabilities

Capital Structure with equity and preference.
Capital Structure with equity and debentures.
Capital Structure with equity, preference shares and debentures
In this project we have chosen the simplest measure of capital structure, Debt-to equity Ratio. Total Debt / Equity
is a measure of all of a company's future obligations on the balance sheet relative to equity. However, the ratio can
be more discerning as to what is actually a borrowing, as opposed to other types of obligations that might exist on
the balance sheet under the liabilities section.

1.2 Defining firm si ze
There are many factors that may determine a firms size, or may classify a firm as small, medium or large firm.
Some of the major parameters for defining firms size are
No of employees working
Total value created during a year
Total turn over
Total Assets book value
None of the above parameter can solely reflect the firms size. For example though Indian Railways is the biggest
employer of the world but this does not make it the largest organization. Here the efficiency of employees comes
into picture and we may have to look the total value created by the firm as a better measure. Further the
profitability of one industry may differ from the other, and hence mare value created may sometimes give a wrong
picture about the size of the firm.
For our study we have taken Total asset (book value) as a measure of firm size. Total asset of a company is not
only easily accessible data but also it is universally accepted measure of size.

1.3 Research methodology
The study is based on the secondary data i.e. financial information available online data bases like Prowess, Capita
Line, and Money Control and also from companys annual reports. Six companies from Refinery industry have been
chosen as a sample. Financial data covers a period of around 15 years from 1999-2000 to 2013-14. To achieve the
objective of analyzing the trend in financing pattern of selected industries, the trend analysis of debt-equity mix as
well as debt- equity ratio for 15 years has been used for study.
Following six companies are taken as sample from Refinery Industry in India:
Reliance Industries.
BPCL.
IOCL.
HPCL.
ESSAR Oil Ltd.
MRPL Ltd.
Research Question:
Is there any significant difference among the Capital Structure (Debt-to-Equity Ratio) of Firms of various
sizes?
Independent Variable: Firm Size (Total Asset)
Independent Variable: Capital Structure (Debt to Equity Ratio)

2 Method
As mentioned earlier 15 years yearly data has been collected of six different refineries based in India as a sample.
As the company wise data-points collected are not sufficient to do the regression analysis on the sample data, it is
proposed to perform a one way ANOVA Test on the data set available. ANOVA Test can be performed even for a
smaller sample size; hence lesser data points should not be a problem. ANOVA test is a test of difference of mean.
So the idea is to determine if there is significant difference among the Capital Structures (debt to equity ratio) of
small, medium, and large firms. Finally a regression analysis of all data points (15 Years X 6 Firms = 90 data points)
to confirm the analysis of ANOVA.
Statistical Analysis is performed in following steps:
1. Intra-Company ANOVA Test
ANOVA Tests will be performed for 15 data points of each company. Debt-to Equity Ratio will be sorted in
increasing order of their Total Asset for 15 years data. For top five Assets value selected firm is considered
as Large, next five as Medium and least five as Small firm sizes. Corresponding Debt-to-Equity ratio
will be grouped correspondingly. Finally ANOVA test will be performed to find if the mean of Debt-to-
Equity Ratios are significantly different or not.

2. Inter-Company ANOVA Test
Next separate ANOVA Test will be performed for all 90 data points (of all companies). Debt-to Equity Ratio
will be sorted in increasing order of their Total Asset. These Ratios will be grouped into five groups as
Very Large, Large, Medium Small and Very Small as per the Asset value. Finally ANOVA test will
be performed to find if the mean of Debt-to-Equity Ratio of each group is significantly different or not.

3. Inter-Company Regression Analysis
Finally Regression will be performed on all data points with Total Asset as independent variable and Debt-
to-Equity Ratio as dependent variable.


3 Result
Collection of
Data
Sorting of Asset
Value
Grouping of D/E
ratio as per
corresponding
Asset Size
Performing
ANOVA
3.1 INTRA-COMPANY ANOVA TEST RESULTS:
MRPL


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r

0.859086111 12.0748 0.303115

1.602187065 3.264991 0.172398

1.38071581 5.599108 0.855298

6.469341495 5.239673 1.168524


0.544039821 0.420096 1.38533

Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 10.85537 2.171074 5.947989

Medium 5 26.59866 5.319733 18.48594

Large 5 3.884665 0.776933 0.279899



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 54.15785533 2 27.07893 3.287098 0.072715549 3.885293835
Within Groups 98.85531765 12 8.237943


Total 153.013173 14



HPCL


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r

0.204515747 0.258902 2.120613

0.502712377 0.762824 1.994384

0.537760611 1.09573 2.273285

0.219661854 1.589155 2.461568

0.550320909 1.843089 2.142566



Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 2.014971 0.402994 0.030704

Medium 5 5.549699 1.10994 0.403028

Large 5 10.99242 2.198483 0.031414



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 8.180798881 2 4.090399 26.3814 4.04701E-05 3.885293835
Within Groups 1.860583662 12 0.155049


Total 10.04138254 14

ESSAR Oil


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r

1.307911681 2.126858 2.800581

2.106601772 3.670363 2.215341

2.373056456 2.407073 2.225016

2.748664402 2.861792 8.127709

3.286444358 2.725919 22.35385



Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 11.82268 2.364536 0.545132

Medium 5 13.792 2.758401 0.341424

Large 5 37.7225 7.544499 74.71464



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 83.15647935 2 41.57824 1.649904 0.232793873 3.885293835
Within Groups 302.4047675 12 25.2004


Total 385.5612468 14



BPCL


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r
0.741890531 0.6076 1.348757

0.962815644 0.916207 1.696011

0.692134481 1.05409 1.541767

1.019304357 1.286512 1.04434

0.459803204 1.745648 1.43315



Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 3.875948 0.77519 0.050568

Medium 5 5.610057 1.122011 0.181893

Large 5 7.064024 1.412805 0.05928



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 1.018998862 2 0.509499 5.239244 0.023146473 3.885293835
Within Groups 1.166960881 12 0.097247


Total 2.185959743 14

Reliance


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r

0.456479494 0.584806 0.607929

0.402327519 0.447886 0.650492

0.412090525 0.435 0.679042

0.446077202 0.439031 0.686457

0.455593734 0.464927 0.823889



Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 2.172568 0.434514 0.00065

Medium 5 2.37165 0.47433 0.003946

Large 5 3.44781 0.689562 0.006589



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.188266336 2 0.094133 25.24846 5.01113E-05 3.885293835
Within Groups 0.044739285 12 0.003728


Total 0.233005622 14



IOCL


Small Medium Large

D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r

1.306484051 1.022135 0.528413

1.322458609 0.8646 0.765802

1.302773655 0.776959 1.245506

0.95274787 0.901089 1.292079

0.881576004 0.666564 1.046407



Anova: SingleFactor


SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Small 5 5.76604 1.153208 0.047119

Medium 5 4.231347 0.846269 0.017842

Large 5 4.878207 0.975641 0.105503



ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 0.237464035 2 0.118732 2.089561 0.166478374 3.885293835
Within Groups 0.681858206 12 0.056822


Total 0.919322241 14

3.2 INTER-COMPANY ANOVA TEST RESULTS:


Very Small Small Medium Large Very Large

D
e
b
t
-
t
o
-
E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o

o
f

6

f
i
r
m
s

f
o
r

l
a
s
t

1
5

y
e
a
r
s

1.307911681
0.17239
8
1.16852
4
2.12061
3
0.46492689
2

2.106601772
3.67036
3
2.21534
1
1.34875
7
0.77695913
8

0.859086111
0.96281
6
0.76282
4
1.24550
6
0.43903091
8

2.373056456
0.69213
4 1.38533
0.52841
3
0.86459995
7

1.602187065
0.20451
6
0.91620
7
1.69601
1
1.02213455
2

1.38071581
1.01930
4 1.09573
1.29207
9
0.43500044
5

6.469341495
0.45980
3
2.22501
6
1.54176
7
0.88157600
4

0.544039821
2.40707
3 1.05409 1.04434 0.95274787

0.741890531
0.50271
2
0.68645
7 1.43315
0.44788590
6

12.07479741
0.53776
1
0.82388
9
1.99438
4
1.30277365
5

2.748664402
0.21966
2
8.12770
9
0.66656
4
1.32245860
9

3.264991137
0.55032
1
1.28651
2
0.67904
2
1.30648405
1

5.599107587 0.6076
1.58915
5
2.27328
5
0.45559373
4

5.239673222
0.25890
2
1.04640
7
0.65049
2 0.58480583

0.420095572
2.86179
2
22.3538
5
2.46156
8
0.44607720
2

3.286444358
2.72591
9
1.84308
9
2.14256
6
0.41209052
5

0.303115312
0.85529
8
1.74564
8
0.60792
9
0.40232751
9

2.126857727
2.80058
1
0.76580
2
0.90108
9
0.45647949
4




Anova: Single
Factor



SUMMARY


Groups Count Sum Average Variance


Very Small 18
52.4485
8 2.91381
8.54574258
2


Small 18
21.5089
5
1.19494
2
1.28330103
6


Medium 18
51.0915
8
2.83842
1
26.5333584
2


Large 18
24.6275
6
1.36819
8
0.40142379
5


Very Large 18
12.9739
5
0.72077
5
0.11587747
5




ANOVA


Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit


Between Groups
72.6462
8 4
18.1615
7
2.46227161
7
0.05126818
1
2.47901
5


Within Groups 626.955 85
7.37594
1



Total
699.601
2 89


3.3 INTER-COMPANY REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULT:

Regression Statistics

Multiple R
0.17763
6

R Square
0.03155
4
Adjusted R
Square
0.02054
9
Standard
Error
2.77473
5

Observations 90


ANOVA

df SS MS F
Significan
ce F

Regression 1 22.07549
22.07
549
2.867261
057
0.093935
848

Residual 88 677.5257
7.699
156

Total 89 699.6012



Coeffici
ents
Standard
Error t Stat P-value
Lower
95%
Upper
95%
Lower
95.0%
Upper
95.0%
Intercept 2.18188 0.366743
5.949
352
5.35231E
-08
1.453056
712
2.9107
04
1.45305
7
2.910704
046
Asset -8.2E-06 4.83E-06
-
1.693
3
0.093935
848
-
1.77788E
-05
1.42E-
06 -1.8E-05
1.4201E-
06

4 Discussion
Intra-company ANOVA Result summary:
Sl.
No.
Company F
Value
F
critical
Significance
Level
Result
1 MRPL 3.28 3.88 0.072 F
value
< F
critical
;
Null Hypothesis accepted.
An increase in asset does not affect the
capital structure.
2 HPCL 26.38 3.88 0.000 F
value
> F
critical
Null Hypothesis rejected.
An increase in asset affects the capital
structure.
3 ESSAR Oil 1.64 3.88 0.232 F
value
< F
critical
Null Hypothesis accepted.
An increase in asset does not affect the
capital structure.
4 BPCL 5.23 3.88 0.023 F
value
> F
critical
Null Hypothesis rejected.
An increase in asset affects the capital
structure.
5 Reliance Industries 25.24 3.88 0.000 F
value
> F
critical
Null Hypothesis rejected.
An increase in asset affects the capital
structure.
6 IOCL 2.08 3.88 0.166 F
value
< F
critical
Null Hypothesis accepted.
An increase in asset does not affect the
capital structure.
y = -8E-06x + 2.1819
R = 0.0316
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.00 100000.00 200000.00 300000.00 400000.00
D
e
b
t

t
o

E
q
u
i
t
y

R
a
t
i
o
Total asset
D/E Ratio
Linear (D/E Ratio)
Above table shows the as the size of a firm increases its capital structure remains same in some cases, and changes
in some case. So we are unable to draw any firm conclusion about the effect of firm size on its capital structure in
refinery industry.
Intra-company ANOVA Results summary:
F P-value F critical
2.462271617 0.051268181 2.479015
F
value
< F
critical
Hence, Null Hypothesis accepted. An increase in asset does not affect the capital structure.
Regression Result summary:
Regression line equation for the regression analysis is as below:
y = -8E-06x + 2.1819
R = 0.0316
Beta value of the regression is negative showing inverse trend between firm size and its capital structure, however
low value of R
2
does not support the statement strongly. Similar conclusion was drawn from the ANOAVA test also.
In all we can conclude that the firm size does not have significant effect on its capital structure.
5 Limitations
The direct effect of firm size on capital structure has been studied. However in actual scenario this effect may be
controlled by number of control variables, like market condition, political structure and the industry in particular.
The sample taken may not reflect the overall industry behavior.
6 References
[1]. Eugene F. Brigham, Michael C. Ehrhardt. Financial management: theory and practice, 2008 Edition 12th
ed. Published Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
[2]. Randolph W. Westerfield, Jeffrey Jaffe, Stephen A. Ross, Ram Kumar Kakani. Corporate Finance 8e. Tata
McGraw Hill Education Private Limited.
[3]. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/.../files/.../KuSt-Paper-2005-11-01-3.p...
[4]. http://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijefi/article/download/3/pdf
[5]. http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/40429737/Capital_Structure_of_SMEs_Does_Firm_Size_Matter.pdf
[6]. http://www.cscjournals.org/csc/manuscript/Journals/IJBRM/volume3/Issue4/IJBRM-94.pdf
[7]. www.wikipedia.org for various topics on capital structure and corporate finance.


7 APPENDIX

Company Year Total
Shareholders
Funds*
Total Debt
(Secured and
Unsecured
Loans)*
Total Assets* Debt-Equity Ratio
MRPL
201403
7068.87 9792.72 16910.19 1.385
MRPL
201303
6467.69 7557.65 14070.52 1.169
MRPL
201203
7229.19 6183.11 13468.65 0.855
MRPL
201103
6528.9 1125.57 7681.31 0.172
MRPL
201003
5596.55 1696.4 7292.95 0.303
MRPL
200903
4729.4 1986.8 6716.2 0.420
MRPL
200803
3782.94 2058.07 5841.01 0.544
MRPL
200703
2756.79 2368.32 5125.11 0.859
MRPL
200603
2395.33 3307.27 5702.6 1.381
MRPL
200503
2163.63 3466.54 5630.17 1.602
MRPL
200403
1483.71 4844.3 6328.01 3.265
MRPL
200303
1022.1 5355.47 6377.57 5.240
MRPL
200203
466.46 5632.41 6098.87 12.075
MRPL
200103
780.86 5051.65 5832.51 6.469
MRPL
200003
965.92 5408.29 6374.21 5.599
HPCL
201403
15012.16 32164.55 54972.07 2.143
HPCL
201303
13726.4 33788.47 54225.02 2.462
HPCL
201203
13122.52 29831.23 48861.57 2.273
HPCL
201103
12545.81 25021.16 42453.75 1.994
HPCL
201003
11557.97 21302.37 32860.34 1.843
HPCL
200903
10730.63 22755.51 33486.14 2.121
HPCL
200803
10563.29 16786.7 27349.99 1.589
HPCL
200703
9598.65 10517.53 20116.18 1.096
HPCL
200603
8735.74 6663.83 15399.57 0.763
HPCL
200503
8440.85 2185.35 10626.2 0.259
HPCL
200403
7742.81 1700.8 9443.61 0.220
HPCL
200303
6678.85 1365.93 8044.78 0.205
HPCL
200203
5897.68 3171.54 9069.22 0.538
HPCL
200103
6486.27 3569.53 10055.8 0.550
HPCL
200003
5771.69 2901.5 8673.19 0.503
ESSAR OIL
201303
1106.83 24741.91 29409.95 22.354
ESSAR OIL
201203
2180.74 17724.42 26041.71 8.128
ESSAR OIL
201103
6537.9 14546.93 21084.83 2.225
ESSAR OIL
201003
4673.65 10353.73 15027.38 2.215
ESSAR OIL
200903
3582.01 10031.71 13613.72 2.801
ESSAR OIL
200803
3600.72 9815.27 13415.99 2.726
ESSAR OIL
200703
2995.13 8571.44 11566.57 2.862
ESSAR OIL
200603
2520.73 6067.58 8588.31 2.407
ESSAR OIL
200503
2404.82 5114.71 7519.53 2.127
ESSAR OIL
200312
1660.4 6094.27 7754.67 3.670
ESSAR OIL
200209
1639.76 5388.98 7028.74 3.286
ESSAR OIL
200103
1645.33 4522.46 6167.79 2.749
ESSAR OIL
200003
1634.9 3879.71 5514.61 2.373
ESSAR OIL
199903
1602.6 3376.04 4978.64 2.107
ESSAR OIL
199803
1577.92 2063.78 3641.7 1.308
BPCL
201403
19458.76 20321.56 40998.37 1.044
BPCL
201303
16634.02 23839.04 41625.89 1.433
BPCL
201203
14913.86 22993.69 38373.47 1.542
BPCL
201103
14057.62 18960.32 33792.39 1.349
BPCL
201003
13086.71 22195.2 35281.91 1.696
BPCL
200903
12128.11 21171.41 33299.52 1.746
BPCL
200803
11676.83 15022.38 26699.21 1.287
BPCL
200703
10273.54 10829.24 21102.78 1.054
BPCL
200603
9139.42 8373.6 17513.02 0.916
BPCL
200503
6388.43 3881.61 10270.04 0.608
BPCL
200403
5849.72 2689.72 8539.44 0.460
BPCL
200303
4747.43 3285.86 8033.29 0.692
BPCL
200203
3997.38 3848.74 7846.12 0.963
BPCL
200103
4079.39 4158.14 8237.53 1.019
BPCL
200003
3494.68 2592.67 6087.35 0.742
Reliance Inds.
201403
197091 89968 287059 0.456
Reliance Inds.
201303
180020 72427 252447 0.402
Reliance Inds.
201203
166097 68447 234544 0.412
Reliance Inds.
201103
151550 67603 219153 0.446
Reliance Inds.
201003
137171.97 62494.69 199666.66 0.456
Reliance Inds.
200903
126374.39 73904.48 200278.87 0.585
Reliance Inds.
200803
81448.6 36479.68 117928.28 0.448
Reliance Inds.
200703
63967.13 27825.73 91792.86 0.435
Reliance Inds.
200603
49804.26 21865.61 71669.87 0.439
Reliance Inds.
200503
40403.32 18784.59 59187.91 0.465
Reliance Inds.
200403
34452.45 20944.66 55397.11 0.608
Reliance Inds.
200303
30374.41 19758.31 50132.72 0.650
Reliance Inds.
200203
27875.26 18928.48 46803.74 0.679
Reliance Inds.
200103
14765.37 10135.79 24901.16 0.686
Reliance Inds.
200003
13982.75 11520.24 25502.99 0.824
IOCL
201403
65992.08 86217.6 166011.38 1.306
IOCL
201303
61124.31 80834.37 153769.11 1.322
IOCL
201203
57876.7 75400.24 143365.42 1.303
IOCL
201103
55332.32 52717.75 108594.14 0.953
IOCL
201003
50552.93 44566.25 95119.18 0.882
IOCL
200903
43998.18 44972.06 88970.24 1.022
IOCL
200803
41086.25 35523.17 76609.42 0.865
IOCL
200703
34857.29 27082.69 61939.98 0.777
IOCL
200603
29302.67 26404.31 55706.98 0.901
IOCL
200503
25984.36 17320.24 43304.6 0.667
IOCL
200403
23047.41 12178.56 35225.97 0.528
IOCL
200303
18927.99 14495.09 33423.08 0.766
IOCL
200203
15311.03 19069.98 34381.01 1.246
IOCL
200103
15970.97 20635.76 36606.73 1.292
IOCL
200003
14064.75 14717.45 28782.2 1.046
* Figures in Rs. Cr.