68652320

You browse ‘Ratio Analysis’ in category ‘Essay examples’ The format in which the info have been categorized is picked after careful consideration of the operation Pharmaceutical Businesses. Nevertheless, the limitations do suggests act as a deterrent in drawing powerful and important inferences from your study

Evaluation of the data: for understanding Comparative Economic statement Evaluation , Advancement in Personal sector Pharmaceutical Companies in India the commonly used rate: fixed Gross profit, Net profit, Returning on capital employed, Go back on Fortune and Getting per talk about, Current proportion, Debtors Velocity (Days), Creditors Velocity (Days), Debt collateral ratio and Interest coverage ratio, Inventory turnover Proportion, Debtors Yield Ratio and Total Property Turnover Percentage Analysis and interpretation: Table-1 Profitability Percentages of Doctor Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd , Lupine Limited. Gross income Net profit ROC RON EPS Yr Dr . RDL Lupin Limited. Dr .

RDL Lupin Limited. Dr . RD Lupin Ltd. Dr . RD Lupin Ltd. Dr . RD Lupin Limited. 2001 twenty two. 16 on the lookout for. 25 nineteen 6. sixty five 31. five 23. 02 29. 3 31. 13 45. thirty-two 201. sixty six 2002 thirty-three. 1 12. 49 thirty-two. 39 six. 54 42. 06 sixteen. 64 45. 71 22. 07 59. 56 seventeen. 42 the year 2003 30. 78 12. two 28. 34 7. a few 26. 44 16. 05 24. 02 20. three or more 50. 6th 17. 44 2004 21 years old. 55 19. 07 20. 4 doze. 48 12-15. 61 28. 1 14. 7 thirty eight. 14 thirty six. 37 twenty three. 76 2005 7. on the lookout for 9. seventy seven 9. nineteen 6. ninety six 2 . 19 12. 75 2 . seventy seven 17. 79 7. 85 20. 09 2006 of sixteen. 27 18. 29 13. 12 11 9. 24 20. eighty six 8. 57 31. 93 26. 82 44. sixty one 2007 37. 06 18. 27 32. 39 15. 53 thirty-five. 94 nineteen. 39 thirty-five. 47 27. 89 69. 45 thirty eight. 75 2008 21. 63 19. twenty seven 18. forty seven 13. 53 12. 01 23. eighty five 10. thirty five 32. 02 27. a couple of 52. thirty-one 2009 twenty-one. 77 18. 28 17. 8 18. 17 13. 55 twenty two. 29 eleven. 14 35. 97 thirty-two. 25 forty eight. 22 2010 28. 77 21. 56 23. 52 17. 7 17. 79 25. 6 15. 14 33. 3 48. twenty-five 70. several Total 240. 99 154. 45 215. 62 107. 86 206. 33 207. 55 197. 1 283. 47 404. 09 532. 96 Typical 24. 099 15. 445 21. 562 10. 786 20. 633 20. 755 19. 71 28. 347 40. 409 53. 296 Min several. 9 being unfaithful. 25 9. 19 six. 65 installment payments on your 19 doze. 75 installment payments on your 77 17. 79 several. 85 17. 42 Utmost 37. summer 21. 56 32. 39 17. 7 42. summer 27. 1 45. 71 36. 18 69. forty five 201. sixty six Sources: Data has been taken from annual studies The major profit proportion of Doctor RDL was 22. 18 % in 2001 which in turn went down into 7. 9% in 2006 but it went up up to twenty eight. 7% in last many years of the study period. The percentage ranged among 7. 9% in june 2006 to 37. 06% in 2007. The ratio demonstrated highly fluctuated trend during the study period. The average major profit percentage was 24. 09% indicated. The major profit proportion of Lupin Ltd. demonstrated highly fluctuated trend during the study period with typically 15. 45%. The ratio was the maximum in the year of 2010 and extremely lowest 2001. T-test T-Test: Calculated benefit of low profit proportion is installment payments on your 86 Tabulated value by 5% significant value=1. 73 d. at the. f. sama dengan 18 by 5% of level of significance t california, t case Hence hypothesis is refused. The Net income ratio of Dr .

RDL was 19% in the year of 2001 and increased to 32. 39% in the year of 2002. The ratio went down to 28. 34% in season of the year 2003. The ratio was really low of being unfaithful. 19% in the past year of 2006 and very top during the year of 2002. The average ratio was 21. 56% with fluctuated trend. The web profit percentage of Lupin Ltd. was 6. sixty-five % in 2001 which in turn went down directly into 6. 96% in 2006 but it rose up to 18. 7% in last a lot of the study period. The ratio ranged between 6. 65% in 2001 to 17. 7% in 2010. The rate showed extremely fluctuated trend during the analyze period. The average gross income ratio was 10. 78% indicated. T-test

Calculated worth of net profit percentage is some. 01 Tabulated value by 5% significant value= 1 ) 73 g. e. farrenheit. = 18 at 5% of standard of significance capital t cal, t tab Therefore hypothesis is rejected. The return in capital utilized ratio was 31. 5% in 2001 which took place to 9. 24 % in the year of 2006 and also went down to 13. 54% and seventeen. 79 through the years of 2009 and 2010 respectively. The ratio ranged between installment payments on your 19% in year of 2005to 42. 06% back in of 2002. The ratio showed down ward craze with typically 20. 63%. The returning on capital employed of Lupin Ltd was exhibiting much fluctuated trend during the year study period.

The average ratio was 20. 76 inside the Lupin Ltd which confirmed fluctuated tendency during the examine period. The ratio was 23. 02% in yr of 2001 and twenty. 86% in year of 2006 and 25. 6% during the last season of research period. The ratio went down because of decreased in volume of product sales. The product sales have gone straight down since cost rise came about in industry. T-test Worked out value of return on capital used ratio is usually 0. 028 Tabulated benefit at 5% significant value= 1 . 73 d. elizabeth. f. sama dengan 18 for 5% of level of significance t �tiolement, t case Hence hypothesis is recognized. The Return on net worth ratio of Dr . RDL was 30. 3% in 2001 which went down into 8. 58% in 2006 but it rose about 15. 14% in previous years of the analysis period. The ratio ranged between 2 . 77% in 2005 to 45. 71% in 2002. The proportion showed highly fluctuated tendency during the study period. The standard gross revenue ratio was indicated19. 71%. The Returning on net worth ratio of Lupin Ltd. showed very fluctuated craze during the research period with an average of twenty-eight. 347%. The ratio ranged between 18. 79% in 2005 to 36. 14% in 2005. T-test Worked out value of Return upon net worth rate is 1 ) 84 Tabulated value for 5% significant value= 1 . 73 deb. e. f. = 18 at five per cent of standard of significance california, t case Hence hypothesis is turned down. Earnings every share of Dr . RDL were Rs. 45. thirty-two in the year of 2001 and Rs fifty nine. 56 back in of fifty nine. 56. The EPS went down to 55. 6 back in of 2003 and Rs 36. thirty seven in the year 2004 and Rs. 7. 85 in the year of june 2006. The EPS rose to 69. 45 in the year 2007and again took place to 28. 62 in 2008. The EPS Rs. 48. twenty-five during the last 12 months of analyze period. The average ESP was 40. forty one with downwards trend during the study period. The EPS was 201. 66 in Lupin Limited. and happened to 20. 2009 in the year of 2005 and reached to 70. several during the last yr of analyze period.

The EPS showed lower level of EPS because of less usage of financial leverage. T-test Calculated value of Earnings per share is 0. 70 Tabulated value at 5% significant value= 1 . 73 d. at the. f. = 18 by 5% of level of significance t �tiolement, t tab Hence speculation is acknowledged. Table-2 Liquidity ratio of Dr . RDL and Lupin Ltd. Current ratio Debtors Velocity (Days) Creditors Speed (Days) 12 months Dr . RDL Lupin Limited. Dr . RDL Lupin Ltd. Dr . RDL Lupin Ltd. 2001 1 ) 69 1 ) 82 forty eight 47 seventy six 27 2002 3. 2009 1 . 74 54 61 79 thirty-five 2003 four. 86 1 ) 58 70 62 82 36 2005 3. 73 1 . thirty four 60 66 85 35 2005 installment payments on your 49 1 ) 1 70 56 85 34 2006 1 . 5 1 . 35 59 57 94 thirty-five 2007 installment payments on your 21 1 . 68 66 63 a hundred and five 38 2008 3. 05 1 . 53 85 69 109 40 2009 3. 15 1 . 24 79 77 110 45 2010 2 . 44 1 . twenty-seven 100 81 120 52 Total twenty-eight. 56 14. 68 671 639 950 382 Normal 2 . 856 1 . 468 63 62 92 thirty seven Min 1 . 69 1 . 1 twenty four 47 seventy six 27 Utmost 4. 86 1 . 82 100 81 120 52 Sources: Data has been taken from annual reports In season 2001 Doctor RDL features 1 . 69 as its current ratio after that it consistently increased coming from 3. 09 to some. 86 in the year of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively. However in year 2005, 2005 , 2006 it also showed unfavorable changes however it moves coming from 2 . 21 years old to 3. 05 in yr 2007 and 2008 respectively.

In the year 2009 and 2010 it displays again very little fluctuated with an average of installment payments on your 85. In year 2001 Lupin Ltd has 1 ) 82 as its current ratio and after which it continuously reduced from 1 . 74 to 1. 58 back in of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively. But also in year 2004, 2005 , 2006 additionally, it showed unfavorable changes nonetheless it moves straight down from 1 . 68 to 1. 53 in year 3 years ago and 2008 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 this shows again little fluctuated with typically 1 . 46. T-test Calculated value of current proportion is 4. 50 Tabulated value at 5% significant value= 1 . 73 deb. e. f. = 18 at 5% of amount of significance california, t case Hence speculation is refused. In season 2001 Doctor RDL features 48 days and nights as its Borrowers Velocity (Days) and after it continuously elevated from fifty four (Days) to 60 back in of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively. However in year 2005, 2005 , 2006 in addition, it showed bad changes but it really moves down from 66 days to 85 in year 2007 and 08 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 this shows once again little fluctuations with typically 63 times. In year 2001 Lupin Ltd. offers 47 days as its Debtors Velocity (Days) and after that it continuously increased from sixty one (Days) to 62 in the year of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively.

But also in year 2005, 2005 , 2006 additionally, it showed unfavorable changes however it moves up from 63 days to 69 in year 3 years ago and 2008 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 that shows once again little fluctuations with an average of 62 days. T-test Worked out value of Debtors Velocity (Days) is 0. 3 Tabulated worth at five per cent significant value= 1 . 73 d. e. f. = 18 in 5% of level of significance t induration, t tabs Hence speculation is accepted. In year 2001 Doctor RDL seventy six days as the Creditors Velocity (Days) after that it continually increased coming from 79 (Days) to 82 in the year of 2002 and 2003 correspondingly.

But in 12 months 2004, 2005 , 2006 it also demonstrated negative changes but it moves down by 105 days and nights to 109 days in year 3 years ago and 08 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 it shows again little fluctuations with typically 92 times. In yr 2001 Lupin Ltd. twenty-seven days as the Creditors Velocity (Days) along with that it continually increased by 35 (Days) to 36 days in the year of 2002 and 2003 respectively. In year 2004, 2005 , 2006 in addition, it showed benefits changes but it moves straight down from 35 days to 42 times in year 2007 and 2008 correspondingly. In the year 2009 and 2010 it displays again small fluctuations with an average of 37 days.

T-test Calculated benefit of Lenders Velocity (Days) is 15. 83 Tabulated value for 5% significant value= 1 . 73 m. e. farreneheit. = 18 at five per cent of level of significance to cal, t tab Therefore hypothesis can be rejected. Power Ratios of Dr . RDL , Lupin Ltd. Table-3 Leverage Percentages of Doctor RDL , Lupin Ltd. Debt equity ratio Fascination coverage ratio Year Dr . RDL Lupin Ltd. Doctor RD Lupin Ltd. 2001 0. 56 1 . seventy nine 5. 05 2 . 09 2002 zero. 19 1 . 88 thirty four. 27 2 . 55 the year 2003 0. 01 1 . seventy seven 72. twenty seven 2 . 53 2004 0. 02 1 ) 24 seventy two. 71 four. 89 2006 0. 08 0. 86 3. 82 4. doze 2006 zero. 28 1 . 18 twelve. 39 almost 8. 6 2007 0. 19 1 . 18 27. 29 8. sixty five 2008 0. 09 0. 83 45. 74 13. 99 2009 0. 10 0. 71 27. 62 2 . thirty-five 2010 0. 11 0. 47 sixty-eight. 8 25. 97 Total 1 . 64 11. 89 362. 96 85. seventy four Average zero. 16 1 ) 19 thirty-six. 30 almost 8. 57 Min 0. 01 0. 47 3. 82 2 . 09 Max zero. 56 1 . 88 72. 71 25. 97 Options: Data continues to be taken from annual reports Your debt equity proportion of Dr . RDL was 0. 56 in 2001 which took place in to 0. 28 5 years ago but it went down to zero. 11 in last a lot of the study period. The rate ranged among 0. 01 in the year 2003 to 0. 56 in 2001. The ratio revealed highly fluctuated trend through the study period. The average Personal debt equity ratio was indicated 0. 16. In year 2001 Lupin Ltd. 1 ) 79 as its Debt collateral ratio and after that it continuously decreased from 1 . 8 to 1. seventy seven days in the year of 2002 and 2003 respectively. However in year 2004, 2005 , 2006 it also showed advantages changes however it moves straight down from 1 ) 16 to 0. 83 in 12 months 2007 and 2008 correspondingly. In the year 2009 and 2010 it shows again tiny fluctuations with an average of 1 ) 19 days. T-test Computed value of Debt value ratio can be 6. 28 Tabulated worth at five per cent significant value= 1 . 73 d. elizabeth. f. sama dengan 18 for 5% of level of relevance t california, t tab Hence speculation is rejected. Interest insurance coverage ratio of Dr . RDL was five. 05 back in of 2001 and Rs 3. 82 in the year of 2006. The eye coverage percentage went up to 72. six in the year of 2003 and 72. 71 in the year 2004 and 3. 82 in the year of 2005. The Interest coverage rate rose to 27. 30 in the year 2007and again gone up to 40. 74in 2008. The Interest insurance ratio was 68. almost eight during the last season of research period. The average Interest insurance coverage ratio was 36. 30 with way up trend throughout the study period. In year 2001 Lupin Ltd. 2 . 09 as its Debt equity ratio along with that it constantly decreased from 2 . fifty five to installment payments on your 53 in the year of 2002 and 2003 respectively. But in year 2004, 2005 , 2006 additionally, it showed downsides changes nonetheless it moves down from 8. 65 to 13. 99 in season 2007 and 2008 correspondingly.

In the year 2009 and 2010 it shows again small fluctuations with an average of 8. 57. T-test Calculated benefit of Interest coverage ratio can be 3. 13 Tabulated value at five per cent significant value= 1 . 73 d. e. f. sama dengan 18 in 5% of level of relevance t �tiolement, t tabs Hence speculation is rejected. Table-4 Yield ratio of Dr . RDL and Lupin Ltd. Products on hand Turnover Percentage Debtors Yield Ratio Total Assets Turnover Ratio 12 months Dr . RDL Lupin Limited. Dr . RDL Lupin Limited. Dr . RDL Lupin Ltd. 2001 almost eight. 65 10. 3 four. 76 a few. 39 1 . 03 1 ) 6 2002 9. 01 6. 61 4. 30 3. 06 0. 99 1 . thirty-two 2003 six. 44 7. 02 3. 64 installment payments on your 75 0. 92 1 ) 29 2004 6. 99 6. seventy four 3. ninety-seven 3. fifth there�s 89 0. 88 1 . several 2005 your five. 79 your five. 23 a few. 78 your five. 37 zero. 85 1 ) 31 2006 5. sixty four 5. 95 4. twenty one 5. 69 0. 82 1 . twenty eight 2007 almost eight. 69 five. 7 some. 94 4. 9 zero. 75 1 ) 14 2008 6. eleven 5. 08 3. 53 4. six 0. sixty-five 1 . 2009 2009 6. 16 four. 39 a few. 66 four. 39 0. 64 0. 99 2010 5. 57 5. 13 3. 66 4. fifty-one 0. fifty nine 0. 94 Total 75. 05 63. 15 45. 44 44. 65 8. 12 12. 23 Common 7. 005 6. 315 4. 044 4. 465 0. 812 1 . 223 Min your five. 57 some. 39 3. 53 2 . 75 zero. 59 0. 94 Utmost 9. 01 11. a few 4. 94 5. 69 1 . 03 1 . six Sources: Data has been obtained from annual information In yr 2001 Dr . RDL eight. 65 as its Inventory Yield Ratio along with that it continuously decreased coming from 9. 01 to six. 44 back in of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively.

But in year 2004, 2005 , 2006 in addition, it showed negatives changes however it moves straight down from eight. 69 to 6. 11 in year 3 years ago and 2008 respectively. Back in 2009 and 2010 that shows once again little changes with typically 7. 01. In yr 2001 Lupin Ltd. 10. 3 as its Inventory Proceeds Ratio and after that it continually increased coming from 6. 61 to six. 02 back in of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively. But in year 2005, 2005 , 2006 additionally, it showed tendency with pros and cons but it techniques down by 5. several to 5. 08 in 12 months 2007 and 2008 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 it displays again tiny fluctuations with an average of six. 2 . Computed value of Inventory Proceeds Ratio can be 0. seventy two Tabulated value at 5% significant value= 1 . 73 d. e. f. = 18 by 5% of level of significance t �tiolement, t tab Hence speculation is recognized. In season 2001 Doctor RDL. 4. 76 as its Debtors Proceeds Ratio after that it constantly decreased coming from 4. up to 29 to 3. sixty four in the year of 2002 and 2003 correspondingly. But in season 2004, 2005 , 2006 it also demonstrated trend with upward actions but it moves down via 4. 94 to 3. 53 in yr 2007 and 2008 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 it shows again small fluctuations with an average of some. 04.

In year 2001 Lupin Limited. 5. 39 as its Borrowers Turnover Rate and after that it continuously reduced from a few. 06 to 2 . seventy five in the year of 2002 and 2003 respectively. But in yr 2004, 2005 , 2006 it also showed trend with upward actions but it movements down by 4. on the lookout for to 5. 73 in year 3 years ago and 08 respectively. In the year 2009 and 2010 that shows again little variances with an average of 4. forty seven. Calculated worth of Debtors Turnover Rate is 1 ) 21 Tabulated value by 5% significant value= 1 ) 73 d. e. farrenheit. = 18 at 5% of level of significance big t cal, capital t tab Hence hypothesis can be accepted. In year 2001 Dr . RDL. 1 . a few as its Total Assets Yield Ratio and after that it continuously decreased by 0. 99 to 0. 92 in the year of 2002 and the year 2003 respectively. However in year 2005, 2005 , 2006 it also showed craze with downward movements nonetheless it moves down from 0. 75 to 0. sixty-five in year 2007 and 2008 correspondingly. In the year 2009 and 2010 it shows again little fluctuations with an average of 0. 81. In year 2001 Lupin Ltd. 1 . 6th as its Total Assets Proceeds Ratio along with that it consistently decreased by 1 . 32 to 1. twenty nine in the year of 2002 and 2003 correspondingly. But in season 2004, june 2006 , 06\ it also demonstrated trend with upward actions but it goes down coming from 1 . some to 1. 2009 in 12 months 2007 and 2008 correspondingly. In the year 2009 and 2010 it displays again tiny fluctuations with an average of 1 . 22. Calculated value of Total Resources Turnover Proportion is five. 34 Tabulated value at 5% significant value= 1 . 73 m. e. n. = 18 at five per cent of amount of significance to cal, to tab Therefore hypothesis is definitely rejected. Brief summary findings and Conclusion The liquidity proportion of Lupin Ltd is extremely threatening in comparison to Dr . RDL. Thus Lupin Ltd must control the latest liabilities or to increase the current assets to enable them to cover all the current debts and be in safer position.

Thus a little bit fluctuations in sales for the reason that situation can not affect the paying out capacity in the concern and therefore maintain the believability. The profitability proportion of Doctor RDL is better when it is in comparison with Lupin Limited. It can be deduced from the end result that Lupin Ltd can expand the business or may move even more in modern directions as it is experiencing constantly growth inside the profitability. Lupin Ltd must give a targeted at thought to lessen cost in providing services and raising the yield so that suffered growth in profitability is visible

Return about Net Capital Employed is a good test of overall earnings and effectiveness of the organization firm. A company with excessive rate of return in capital used would be capable of capitalize, at the. g. it can take advantage of all favorable marketplace opportunities. The research shows that comes back on capital employed in selected units in India had marked a fluctuated pattern. The average was 17. seventy nine and 25. 6 percent in products in India respectively. This ratio was satisfactory. Overall Dr . DRL had the greatest return net on capital employed of As compared to the Lupin limited.

In the mild of the previously mentioned discussion it is suggested that Lupin ltd should certainly undertake price control measure so that increase net earnings before curiosity and fees of the firm might improve the return upon net capital employed. The solvency proportion also reveals the same track record of an upper hand over Lupin ltd. This position depicts the financial soundness or very good financial well being of the DOCTOR RDL. In this sector Lupin ltd. needs to work hard pertaining to providing the financial health in terms of capital also. The turnover percentage of Lupin Ltd. is definitely showing better position when compared with DR . RDL. This fact proves which the market size in Lupin Ltd. s i9000 far more better than the DR . RDL which is gearing its growth in all the stream. Thus DR . RDL needs to work for raising the market size and consumer bottom so that it is capable of the trend of continuous growth. It can be deduced from the general financial research that Lupin Ltd ltd. has to re-think and device the strategies so that it usually leads towards confident way and be the major players. Innovation although financial affirmation analysis is seen though mergers and acquisitions and starting of new companies schemes so that enterprise could be proud of being major marketplace players and setter new and newer goals in the future.

Cost accounting and price audit needs to be made obligatory for this units and cost sheet along with twelve-monthly financing declaration should be well prepared. The coverage of took out financing in selected Parma group of companies under study was not proper. So the businesses should make use of widely the borrowed funds and should try to reduce the fixed charges burden gradually by simply decreasing obtained funds and by enhancing the owner’s fund. For this purpose businesses should enhance their collateral share capital by providing new value shares. There have been too much of govt interference in policy and day-to-day operating and decisions.

This leads to holds off in decision-making. This should become abolished. There is absolutely no incentive for the employees to perform better. As well there is no liability because nobody is held accountable for a failing in obtaining targets for this kind of trouble responsibility centre should be created. Improper organizing and holdups hindrances impediments in execution of assignments lead to rise in their cost. So properly planning needs to be made. To regularize and optimize the utilization of cash balance proper tactics may be followed for planning and control over cash. The investments in arrays should be lowered and ought to introduce a system of immediate collection of debts.

Selected pharma companies need to use effectively their operating assets and really should try to lessen their nonoperating expenses. To conclude the study, it might be said that the adoption of above procedures will doubtlessly help the chosen companies to boost their performance in the managing. With the successful management of long term account, selected companies can utilized their capability optimally and accelerate monetary growth of India by raising the production of pharma merchandise at sensible cost. Recommendations. 1 . Doctor Promod Kumar. “Analysis of financial statement of Indian Industries”Saujaniya Publication Ltd. 1992 2 . Ahindra Chakrabati: “Performance of public sector enterprises an instance study on fertilizers” The Indian log of community enterprise. 1988-89 3. Doctor Sugan C. Jain: “Performance appraisal car industry” Raj Publishing Property, c2002. Jaipur, India 5. Parmar T. J.: “Financial Efficiency-Modern methods, tools , Techniques” Raj publication yr of publication-2001 5. Dr Sanjay Bhayani: “Practical monetary statement analysis” Raj publication, 2003 6th. Kakani, Ram Kumar, Saha, Biswatosh and Reddy, Versus. N.

Nagi, Determinants of economic Performance of Indian Corporate Sector inside the Post-Liberalization Age: An Exploratory Study (November 2001). Countrywide Stock Exchange of India Limited, NSE Exploration Initiative Newspaper No . a few. 7. Dutts S. T has: “Indian tea industry an appraisal” Management curator, March-1992 8. Brigham, Eugene. F and Joel N. Houston. “Fundamentals of Financial Management, Ninth Model, Harcourt School Publishers, Ft Worth, 2001. 9. Review of Business Analysis, 2007 by simply Tarun T. Mukherjee, Prakash Deo. 10. Gitman, D. J., “Principles of Supervision finance, ” New York: Harper , Line publishers, 1982, p. 81 11. Paton , Paton., “Corporation Accounts and statements”, New York: Macmillan Company, 1964, p. 362. 12. Kulshreshtha, N. T., “Analysis of Financial statements of Indian Conventional paper industry”, Aligarh: Navman Submitting House, 72, p. 133. 13. Kulshreshtha, N. T., Op. cit., p. 134. 14. Hunt W. and Donaldson, G., “Business Finance-text and cases”, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1965, Pp. 114-115. 12-15. Roy Chowdhar, A. W., “Analysis and Interpretation of Financial statements”, New Delhi Navigate Longmans, 70, p. twenty-four. 16. Bogen, J. J., “Financial Handbook” New Delhi: The Ronald press, 1957, p. 53. 17. Weston, J. Farrenheit. and Brigham, E. Farrenheit., “Management finance”, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winton, Incorporation,. 1972, p. 88. 18. Hingorani, In. L. and Raman than, A. 3rd there�s r., “Management Accounting”, New Delhi: Sultan Chand , Daughters, 1977, s. 115. 19. Srivastava, L. M., “Financial Management”, Meerut India: Pragati Prakasjan, lates 1970s, p. 476. 20. Westiwick, C. A., “Management: Using ratios”, Epping Essex: Gardener Press Ltd. 1973, s. 5 twenty one. Bogen, T. J., Operative. cit. Pp. 751-752. twenty two. Mohsin, Meters., “Financial Planning and Control”, NewDelhi: Vikas publishing Residence Pvt. Ltd., 1980, g. 174. 23.

Kulshrestha, D. K. Op. cit., 139. 24. HENDERSON, G. Sixth is v., Gurry, T. R. Trnnep Oh., James E. Wirt., “An Introduction to financial Management”, California: Addition-Wesley publishing organization, 1984, s. 122. twenty-five. Anthony, Ur. N. and Reece, M. S., Operative., cit., p. 198. 26. Information attained through unstructured interviews from financial managers of the test units nevertheless telephone. 28. Annual reports of chosen cement firm from 2003-04 to 2008-09 28. Kennedy, R. M. and Mcmullen, S. Sumado a., “Financial transactions: Forms research and interpretation”, Illnois: Rich D. Irwin inc. 1964, p. 404. Information about this content Peer-review rankings (from a couple of reviews, where a score of 100 signifies the ‘average’ level): Originality = a hundred seventy five. 00, importance = 162. 50, overall quality = 162. 55 This Article was published about 14th 03, 2012 in 18: 41: 24 and has been viewed 2635 times. This job is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2 . 5 Certificate. The full quotation for this Content is: Kakkad, R. (2012). Comparative Economical statement Evaluation , Advancement in Non-public sector Pharmaceutic Companies in India-An scientific Analysis. PHILICA. COM Document number 318.