Brands
ITC voluntarily liquidates wholly owned subsidiary Prag Agro Farm
KOLKATA: ITC has quietly shut down Prag Agro Farm Limited, drawing the curtain on a sliver of its agri portfolio that barely registered on the balance sheet. The wholly owned subsidiary was voluntarily liquidated with effect from 10 December 2025, following an order by the National Company Law Tribunal’s Mumbai bench.
The order, received on 18 December, formally dissolves Prag Agro Farm and ends its status as an ITC subsidiary. The company disclosed the development under Regulation 30 of the SEBI listing regulations.
By any financial measure, Prag Agro Farm was immaterial. In FY 2024–25, it reported total income of Rs 9.62 lakh, accounting for just 0.0001 per cent of ITC’s consolidated income. Its net worth stood at Rs 82.11 lakh as of 31 March 2025, a mere 0.0013 per cent of the parent’s net worth.
There was no sale, no buyer and no consideration involved. The dissolution did not trigger related-party concerns, slump-sale disclosures or scheme-of-arrangement requirements. It was, in regulatory terms, a clean exit.
The disclosure was signed by R K Singhi, executive vice president and company secretary, and circulated to Indian stock exchanges as well as regulators in the United States and Luxembourg.
For ITC, a conglomerate spanning FMCG, paperboards, packaging, agri-business and information technology, the move is less about retrenchment and more about housekeeping. A negligible unit has been taken off the books, allowing management to concentrate capital and attention where scale and growth still matter.
In an era of portfolio pruning and sharper capital discipline, even giants make quiet cuts. This one barely made a ripple.
Brands
Godrej clarifies ‘GI’ identifier after logo similarity debate
Says GI is not a logo, will not replace Godrej signature across products.
MUMBAI: In a branding storm where shapes did the talking, Godrej is now spelling things out. Godrej Industries Group (GIG) has issued a clarification on its newly introduced ‘GI’ identifier, addressing questions around its purpose and design following a wave of online criticism. At the centre of the debate were two concerns: whether the new mark replaces the long-standing Godrej logo, and whether its geometric design mirrors other corporate identities.
The company has drawn a clear line. The Godrej signature logo, it said, remains unchanged and continues to be the sole logo across all consumer-facing products and services. The ‘GI’ mark, by contrast, is not a logo but a corporate group identifier intended for use alongside the Godrej signature or company name, and aimed at stakeholders such as investors, media and talent rather than consumers.
The need for such a distinction stems from the 2024 restructuring of the broader Godrej Group into two separate business entities. With both continuing to operate under the same Godrej name and signature, the identifier is positioned as a way to differentiate the Godrej Industries Group at a corporate level.
The rollout, however, triggered a broader conversation on design originality. Critics pointed to similarities between the GI mark’s geometric composition and logos used by companies globally, raising questions about distinctiveness.
Responding to this, GIG said its intellectual property and legal review found that such overlaps are common in minimalist, geometry-led design systems. Basic forms such as circles and rectangles appear across dozens of brand identities worldwide, the company noted.
It added that the identifier emerged from an extensive design process and was chosen for its simplicity, allowing it to sit alongside the Godrej signature without competing visually. While acknowledging that elemental shapes may appear less distinctive in isolation, the group emphasised that the mark is part of a broader identity system that includes a custom typeface, sonic branding and other proprietary elements.
Following legal and ethical assessments, the company said it found no impediment to using the identifier, reiterating that the GI mark is a corporate tool not a consumer-facing symbol.
In short, the logo isn’t changing but the conversation around it certainly has.
