&w=3840&q=100)
Jubilant Foodworks Q1 results: Profit jumps 63% to ₹94 cr on strong sales
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Jubilant Foodworks Ltd (JFL), which operates fast-food chains Domino's Pizza and Dunkin' Donuts, on Wednesday reported a 62.58 per cent increase in consolidated net profit to ₹ 94.33 crore during the June quarter.
The company has reported a net profit of ₹58.02 crore for the April-June period a year ago, JFL, which is part of the Jubilant Bhartia Group, said in a regulatory filing.
Revenue from operations was up 16.95 per cent to ₹2,260.86 crore in the June quarter from ₹1,933.06 crore a year ago.
Its total expenses were ₹2,153.74 crore in the June quarter, up 15.3 per cent.
JFL's total income, which includes other income, was up 16.88 per cent to ₹ 2,279.39 crore.
JFL's revenue from the Indian market during the quarter was ₹1,701.6 crore, up 18.2 per cent, driven by 17.7 per cent growth in Domino's India business, the company said in its earnings presentation.
"In Turkey, sales came in at ₹9,300 million ( ₹930 crore)... Domino's Sri Lanka revenue of ₹248 million ( ₹24.8 crore) was up by 42.4 per cent. Domino's Bangladesh revenue came in at ₹177 million ( ₹17.7 crore), higher by 4.3 per cent. A total of 13 net stores were added across all brands in the international markets, ending the period with 1,025 stores," the company said in a filing.
JFL added 71 stores during the quarter, taking the group network to 3,387 stores, in which Domino's network is 3,098 stores.
The company CEO and MD Sameer Khetarpal said, "Q1 has been a stellar start, setting the tone for a dynamic year ahead. We've accelerated menu innovation, significantly expanded the share of our own digital assets and made decisive strides towards achieving 20-minute delivery." In parallel, we continue to scale Popeyes with the ambition of making it India's most-loved chicken brand. Our focus remains firmly on margin expansion in the business, while maintaining strong cash flows from our Turkey business," he said.
JFL is a leading QSR chain operator with franchise rights for three global brands -- Domino's, Popeyes and Dunkin' -- and two owned brands, Hong's Kitchen, an Indo-Chinese QSR brand in India, and a CAF brand -- COFFY -- in Turkey.
Shares of Jubilant Foodworks on Wednesday settled at ₹639.90 on the BSE, up 1.09 per cent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Friends & foes in an uncertain, shifting world
President Donald Trump's coercive tariffs on India and indulgence of Pakistan have turned euphoria about India-US partnership under his leadership into bewildered dismay and rage. The sequence and the corrosive language suggest that tariffs are a manifestation and expression of problems beyond trade. It also betrays our lack of economic leverage unlike China's. Various reasons have been attributed to his decisions that do not bear repeating here. There is politicisation of the relationship in the US not seen in the past three decades, with the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, a Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideologue, joining the chorus of criticism on India's purchase of Russian oil. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. (PTI) In India, there is domestic political impact due to the huge investment in the relationship; geopolitical ramifications because of the strategic bets we made in a shifting global environment; and, economic consequences from setback to exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. Of equal concern is Pakistan. There have been multiple short-lived U-turns in the US-Pakistan relations that do not end well for either. But, every time US-Pakistan relations improve, Pakistan is emboldened in its military adventurism and terrorism against India. Pakistan also hopes to capitalise on President Trump's obsession with peace-making to inveigle him into mediating the 'Kashmir issue'. The government has been rightly firm on red lines for its sensitive sectors and sovereign choices, yet restrained in statements and open to negotiations. For a number of reasons, this is not a 1998 moment, but there are lessons from it. Amidst an absolute freeze then, India chose engagement over hostility. As then, this crisis is an opportunity to renegotiate the relationship with clarity and strength. Since the transformation of India-US relations began in 2000, there have been differences, including on ties with Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that both sides have navigated. The challenge, perhaps, is that we are dealing with a president with no precedence. Engagement with the US must continue and a way forward is found, without compromising our national interests. The relationship has substance, multiple dimensions and strong institutional mechanisms to provide resilience. However, beyond the vulnerabilities arising from the vicissitudes of the relationship, broad global trends require an appraisal of our policies. The transformation of India-US relations started in an era of unipolar US power reinforced by a strong transatlantic partnership. China was still not a major power and considered amenable to integration into the western order. The US–Russia relationship had not reached the present level of hostility. That geopolitical space which allowed multidirectional relationships is shrinking. There is also the expectations gap, more visible in the mature state than in the period of courtship, between a less self-assured US with unipolar ambitions and neat allies-adversaries dichotomy, and a rising India of strategic autonomy and multipolar inclinations. The fissures were beginning to appear during the Biden era. But it was papered over because of the overriding objective of containing China based on the classic American foreign policy goals and strategy of both direct containment and involvement of formal and informal alliances that necessitated accommodation of differences. President Trump will deal directly with China and pursue a different set of goals with a range of possible outcomes. With allies, the relationships will be on independent tracks based on perceived grievances and extractive possibilities, as Japan, Korea, Australia and the EU have seen or Taiwan may experience. More broadly, he has diluted or dismantled the instruments of US engagement — trade, technology, investment, aid, education, mobility, soft power, institutional reinforcement, guarantees and commitments. Even as countries are trying to negotiate a least cost agreement in the short-term, there will be the inevitable hedging, diversification and regionalisation that will diminish American power and influence, including in the Indo Pacific. China has overtaken the US in influence and power in the Asean region. Russia has weathered the worst over the past three years. Europe, buffeted by three powers, is in search of strategic influence. Trump is accelerating the erosion of West-built global institutions. Brics today evokes more interest than western institutions. Multipolarity is a rising tide. In this world of change, India's pursuit of strategic autonomy is a stronger imperative. So, as we rebuild ties with the US, we must do so on realistic foundations. At the same time, we must reinvigorate and restructure our broader global engagement, including with Russia, China and Europe, beginning with our home that is Asia and the Indian Ocean. Consistent with our values, our position must also carry the moral weight of principles, as for example on the tragedy unfolding in Gaza, which will also increase our standing in the Global South. In trade, we must do all we can to ensure competitive access to the US market, but also hasten the pursuit of other destinations that together account for over 80% of India's exports. If India is to increase exports on scale, we must pursue major economic reforms at home; invest in people, innovation and technology; and integrate more into the global value chains (GFCs). There is strong correlation between high-quality free trade agreements and global value chains, which account for 50-70% of global trade. Potential critical and bottleneck products account for around 20% in global trade, with almost 66% of the share of the exports in these products originating from East Asia-Pacific. Global trade is transitioning from multilateralism to regionalism and bilateralism, accelerated by US policies since 2008. We are on that path, too. The scope and coverage of the UK comprehensive economic and trade agreement and our EU proposal reflect our new ambitions. We must also revisit our agreements with Asian powers and find a modus vivendi with China. The government's emphasis on energy security through renewable, hydrogen and nuclear sources and on digital sovereignty is the right course. Defence capabilities and indigenisation, already a high priority, need a stronger boost. Foreign collaborations must take into partners' history, policies and geopolitical positions, and create genuine capabilities in India, not technological dependencies. For India, this crisis is an opportunity to build its future and pursue the path to be the power we wish to be. Jawed Ashraf is a former Indian ambassador. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Resisting the coercive new global trade order
How should India respond to the challenges posed by the US tariffs of 50%? Some believe that this crisis presents an opportunity for India to implement deeper economic reforms aimed at enhancing the overall competitiveness of its economy. Others argue that India should intensify its efforts to integrate with non-American economies, such as the EU. Trump has inaugurated a new chapter in the global imperial project, which his successor may continue. Efforts are underway to establish new rules for international trade. (Bloomberg) While these measures are undoubtedly necessary, many Indian analysts overlook a larger issue — the new ideological contestation on the global stage aimed at reshaping international law norms governing world trade. Many believe that US President Donald Trump has upended the rule-based international trading order established by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, there is a prevailing belief that this disruption is temporary. Once Trump leaves office, the status quo would be restored. This view, however, is overly sanguine. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus among both Republicans and Democrats in the US regarding the substance of Trump's actions, even though they may differ in their approach. The Biden administration did little to revive the moribund WTO during its term from 2020 to 2024. Trump has inaugurated a new chapter in the global imperial project, which his successor may continue. Efforts are underway to establish new rules for international trade. This was made clear by ambassador Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative. Greer posits that the US has initiated a new 'Trump round' of trade negotiations that, unlike previous rounds at the GATT and WTO, will not rely on consensus-based decision-making. The key elements of this new global trade order include legitimising American coercion for deeper market access, establishing stronger links between trade and non-trade issues like labour, and, most importantly, implementing unilateral enforcement by the US, as opposed to the apolitical dispute settlement system employed by the WTO. If these rules of coercive capitalism become codified as a new international trade order, it could be disastrous for countries in the Global South, including India. Therefore, it is essential to engage in an ideological battle on the global stage against the radical American populist right. It is crucial to understand the intriguing relationship between imperialism and international law. The mainstream belief has been that there is a clear distinction between the imperial past and modern international law. The former is often viewed as a historical anomaly, while the latter is promoted as universal and liberal, representing a narrative of decolonisation and development. However, critical international lawyers argue that international law never severed its ties with its imperial and colonial history. Genealogy, they argue, plays a crucial role in shaping international law norms. Therefore, the expansion of capitalism has played a pivotal role in the growth of international law. As India's foremost international lawyer, B S Chimni, argues, akin to the 'spirit of capitalism' — capitalism's ability to reinvent itself in different phases — there is also a 'spirit of international law'. This spirit allows international law to evolve continually, ably disguising imperial ambitions within the narrative of progress. On one hand, international law presents itself as a universal tool that promotes the global common good and aims to establish a just world order. On the other hand, it also reinforces the imperial agendas of the Global North. The evolution of the multilateral trade order from the establishment of GATT in 1948 to the formation of the WTO in 1995 and beyond reflects the 'spirit of international law.' This rule-based international trade system, influenced by the assertiveness of the decolonised world, made several concessions to developing countries by recognising principles such as non-discrimination, special and differential treatment, preferential market access, and a depoliticized dispute settlement system that aims to resolve trade disputes without resorting to coercive trade diplomacy. Simultaneously, international trade law has promoted and exported American and European norms, leading to their universal adoption. A notable example is the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPR). Economist Robert Reich argues that private property is a fundamental element of the Western capitalist model based on free markets. Over time, the rules governing the protection of private property have expanded to include new types of property, such as IPR. International trade law has played a vital role in establishing binding rules for the global enforcement of IPR through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement within the WTO. This framework primarily benefits the corporate interests of countries in the Global North, often at the expense of those in the Global South. Another significant example is agricultural trade. The US and the EU provide substantial subsidies to their agricultural sectors. They managed to include an Agreement on Agriculture in the WTO rulebook, allowing them to continue offering significant subsidies to their farmers. Despite its weaknesses, the WTO systemoffers a platform for deeper engagement and the possibility of reform. It provides an opportunity to mainstream the development argument and hold the Global North accountable in a depoliticised international court. The consensus-based decision-making process has mostly prevented the adoption of rules inimical to the developing world. However, the emerging global trade order appears to be unabashedly imperial, abandoning any pretensions of development and equity and sacrificing the spirit of international law. It unapologetically aims to legitimise unilateralism and coercion, validating the connection between imperialism and international law that critical international lawyers draw. Consequently, the Global South, particularly India, must engage in an ideological battle to defend the existing order. For India, the stakes extend beyond mere market access or a trade deal with the US. India must be at the vanguard in defending the WTO-based international trade system, which, while not perfect, is certainly preferable to the impending new imperial trade order. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Intel shares rise 4% on report of possible US government stake purchase
Trump, who called the meeting "very interesting", has taken an unprecedented approach to interventions and deal-making with corporate America Reuters Intel shares rose 4 per cent on Friday on hopes of more financial aid for the turnaround of the struggling chipmaker after a report that the U.S. government may buy a stake. The Bloomberg News report followed a meeting between CEO Lip-Bu Tan and President Donald Trump on Monday after Trump demanded the new Intel chief's resignation over his "highly conflicted" ties to Chinese firms. Trump, who called the meeting "very interesting", has taken an unprecedented approach to interventions and deal-making with corporate America. His administration had struck a deal with MP Materials that would make the Department of Defense the largest shareholder of the rare-earth producer. Federal backing could give Intel more time to revive its loss-making foundry business, analysts said, but it still faces a weak product roadmap and trouble attracting customers for new factories. Under the Biden administration, Intel had emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 2022 CHIPS Act, as former CEO Pat Gelsinger laid out plans to build advanced factories. Tan, however, pared back such ambitions, slowing construction of new plants in Ohio. He plans to build factories based on demand for the services, which analysts have said could put him at odds with Trump's push to shore up American manufacturing. The report said a deal would help build out the Ohio plant, which has faced delays and was expected to be completed by 2030. It could be a "game-changer", said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. But he warned "government support might help shore up confidence, but it doesn't fix the underlying competitiveness gap in advanced nodes." Intel lost its competitive edge years ago to Taiwan's TSMC . It has virtually no presence in the booming AI chips market dominated by Nvidia and is losing market share in PCs and datacenters to AMD. Its latest 18A manufacturing process is facing quality issues, Reuters has reported, as only a small share of chips produced are good enough for customers, while it remains partly dependent on TSMC to make Intel in-house designed chips. "Intel also needs capability; can the US government do anything to help here?" Bernstein analysts said. "Without a solid process roadmap the entire exercise would be economically equivalent to simply setting 10s of billions of dollars on fire."
