RIL reported a net profit attributable to shareholders of Rs 19,407 crore for Q4 FY25, reflecting a year-on-year increase of 2.4%, surpassing market predictions due to reductions in depreciation, interest, and tax rates.

For the three months ending March 31, revenue rose 8.8% year-on-year to Rs 2.88 lakh crore, supported by robust growth in the company’s digital services, retail, and oil-to-chemicals segments.

The consolidated net profit for Q4 FY25 was Rs 19,407 crore, up from Rs 18,951 crore in the previous year. Additionally, RIL declared a dividend of Rs 5.5 per equity share for FY25. Sequentially, profits also increased from Rs 18,540 crore in the October–December quarter, while revenue from operations climbed to Rs 2.6 trillion, up from Rs 2.4 trillion recorded in January–March 2024.

Motilal Oswal has projected that Jio will lead growth with an anticipated annual EBITDA increase of 21% from FY25 to FY27. Meanwhile, Nomura Holdings identified several growth drivers, including the expansion of the new energy sector, expected tariff increases for Jio, and the potential IPO of Jio, which could unlock significant value for RIL. JP Morgan highlighted a notable 16% year-on-year growth acceleration in Reliance Retail for Q4.

Trump’s varying policies, which include country-specific reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% with a 90-day implementation delay, have introduced considerable uncertainty into global markets, according to Yonhap News Agency.

Many South Korean firms, which depend heavily on exports to the U.S., are now facing challenges in adapting to this increasingly volatile trading landscape.

Initially, upon taking office on January 20, Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada—countries that enjoy tariff-free access to the U.S. under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—but later retracted these tariffs.

In April, Trump unveiled his long-anticipated reciprocal tariffs on goods from nations with trade surpluses with the U.S., alongside a 10% baseline duty on imports from all countries, impacting South Korean products with a 25% reciprocal tariff.

While specific sectors like cars, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals are exempt from these tariffs, they still face existing or forthcoming sectoral duties. The inconsistency in trade policy from the U.S.—the world’s largest economy—has posed significant strategic challenges for many South Korean exporters.

To address potential repercussions, several companies are considering relocating production or scaling back production. However, experts caution that these responses are limited. The unpredictable nature of U.S. trade policy complicates long-term planning and increases costs.

“Firms will look for ways to lower costs by moving production facilities or adjusting shipments to the U.S.,” explained Cho Seong-dae, head of the trade policy research office at the Korea International Trade Association (KITA). “Yet, predicting U.S. trade policy is nearly impossible, leaving many decisions in limbo as everyone awaits Trump’s next move.”

Following threats of tariffs on Mexican imports, South Korean companies like Kia Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., and LG Electronics Inc., had plans to relocate their Mexican operations to the U.S. or boost production elsewhere. However, these plans were put on hold once the tariffs were waived, and Mexico was excluded from reciprocal tariffs.

Recently, Hyundai Motor Group, South Korea’s largest automaker, announced a $21 billion investment in the U.S. over the next three years to increase American production. Nonetheless, the company remains subject to sectoral tariffs on imported vehicles, with Hyundai and Kia having sold 1.7 million vehicles in the U.S. last year, including a million cars made in Korea.

Meanwhile, trade negotiations between Seoul and Washington commenced last week, with South Korea seeking exemptions from both reciprocal and sector-specific tariffs. They have proposed a comprehensive “package deal” covering multiple sectors to achieve more favorable terms.

Amid these ongoing discussions, many South Korean companies are taking a cautious, wait-and-see approach while also formulating contingency plans. Samsung Electronics, which operates across semiconductors, home appliances, and smartphones, expressed optimism about navigating the shifting trade landscape due to its extensive global production network.

“The impact of the new reciprocal tariffs is minimal, but we are closely monitoring the evolving U.S. trade policies,” stated Yong Seok-woo, president and head of Samsung’s visual display business. “With ten global production bases, we intend to tackle these challenges through strategic allocation.”

In the semiconductor industry, where Trump has hinted at potential new tariffs, South Korean chipmakers remain cautious. “There’s not much we can do at this stage,” said an official from a major Korean chipmaker. “We must wait for Trump’s next announcement before defining our strategy.” Growing concerns also hover over investments already committed under the U.S. CHIPS Act.

The NJDG is an accessible public portal that presents judicial data on crucial performance metrics such as case institution, pendency, and disposal within India’s formal court system. Its goal is to foster transparency, accessibility, and accountability, while bolstering evidence-based judicial reforms.

India’s rapid growth and urbanization have led to a rise in disputes, burdening the judicial system. With over 5 crore cases pending across various courts, and the rate of case disposal falling short of new admissions in many areas, the statement underscores the urgent need for reforms to tackle this escalating backlog.

The NJDG serves as a pivotal tool for reducing pendency through data-driven policy interventions. Although the Grid is already a valuable resource, it must continue to evolve in terms of scope, coverage, and data quality to support informed policymaking across the country’s expansive judicial landscape, CII emphasized.

CII has proposed five specific recommendations to enhance the efficacy of the NJDG as a transformative resource for quicker dispute resolution:

1. **Specific Dispute Categorization**: There is a need for a more precise classification of disputes that correlates with their respective statutes and legal provisions. This will help identify frequently and seldom invoked statutes, assess average resolution times for specific categories, pinpoint delays, and draw lessons from best practices, thereby facilitating targeted policy measures for high-volume, time-consuming, and outdated provisions.

2. **Detailed Case Categorization Framework**: A standardized categorization framework is essential for consistent and comparable data reporting across courts. For example, while the Delhi High Court categorizes cases into around 50 distinct groups (such as Intellectual Property Matters and Cybercrimes), NJDG includes substantially fewer categories. A comprehensive reporting structure in NJDG would improve comparability, tracking of pendency trends, and enable tailored policy responses.

3. **Continuous Data Reporting by All Courts**: It is crucial to ensure that all courts consistently report their data to NJDG. Currently, some courts fail to report case statistics, leading to an underestimate of pendency in certain states. For instance, Tamil Nadu reports only 15 pending commercial cases at the district level on NJDG, while the actual figure is estimated to be around 5,000.

4. **Enhanced Tracking of Procedural Timeframes**: NJDG should expand its scope to include the time taken at each stage of litigation. While it currently tracks stages like admission, hearing, final arguments, and judgment for pending civil and criminal cases, it does not provide data on the length of time cases remain pending at each stage. Implementing time-based metrics would enable a more accurate analysis of judicial delays and inform targeted corrective actions.

5. **Real-Time State Rankings**: To instill a competitive ethos among states, NJDG could offer real-time automated rankings based on the collected data. Rankings could be further differentiated by case types, such as commercial and non-commercial cases. Initially, these rankings could be based on the case-clearance rate (the ratio of case disposals to admissions) averaged over completed months for a calendar year, including retrospective data for the past 5 to 10 years. This approach would encourage states to streamline dispute resolution processes, adopt best practices, and advance judicial reforms.