IndiGo's Startup Investment Arm Picks Jeh Aerospace as First Bet
IndiGo on Wednesday announced it has invested in Hyderabad-based startup Jeh Aerospace as its first bet through IndiGo Ventures, a fund aimed at backing early-stage startups in aviation and related industries.
The Indian carrier got regulatory approval last October to launch the fund and has raised INR 4.5 billion ($52.5 million) so far out of an expected INR 6 billion ($70 million).
IndiGo said it wants to back companies that can solve operational headaches and help the airline reduce dependence on global supply chains.
'The fund will also look to invest in consumer startups that have a touchpoint in the passenger journey, such as travel, lifestyle, hospitality, transportation, etc,' the airline said in October.
The companies did not disclose the amount of the investment.
What Does Jeh Aerospace Do?
Jeh Aerospace focuses on making flight-critical components. The company was founded by Vishal Sanghavi and Venkatesh Mudragalla, both of whom previously worked in Tata's joint ventures with global giants like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
According to an IndiGo press statement, Jeh has locked in long-term contracts worth $100 million with global aerospace clients. The startup also uses artificial intelligence to streamline production, improve quality, and manage complex supply chains more efficiently.
India is one of the fastest-growing aviation markets, but it still imports a lot of aerospace components. With most parts for planes flying in India still coming from abroad, this also leads to delays, higher costs, and sometimes even shortages.
Jeh aims to change that.
"Geographically, the U.S. has the largest aerospace industry and hence the largest markets, and that's why we've established a presence in the U.S., making the U.S.-India corridor a key focus area for us," according to the company website.
This fits in with IndiGo's broader ambition of making India a hub for aviation and aerospace. IndiGo CEO Pieter Elbers called Jeh Aerospace, 'a homegrown brand that shares our vision.'
'By combining our technical expertise and global footprint, this partnership will propel use of next-generation technology in the aerospace and aviation sector. This investment also strengthens the Indo-U.S. aerospace ties, advances Make-in-India and accelerates innovation, contributing to realising India's potential to become a global aerospace and aviation hub,' Elbers said.
Jeh said it would use the funds to upgrade its facilities, expand AI-driven production, and hire more engineering and production talent. The focus will be on deepening its digital systems and ensuring parts can be made faster, cheaper, and to the exacting standards that international clients expect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Republicans and Democrats Push for Release of More Epstein Files
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, left, and Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, second from right, meeting with Chinese officials in Geneva in May. In recent years, one of China's biggest requests of American officials has been that the United States relax its strict controls on advanced artificial intelligence chips, measures that were put in place to slow Beijing's technological and military gains. Last week, the Trump administration did just that, as it allowed the world's leader in A.I. chips, the U.S.-based Nvidia, to begin selling a lower-level but still coveted chip known as H20 to China. The move was a dramatic reversal from three months ago, when President Trump himself banned China from accessing the H20, while also imposing triple-digit tariffs on Beijing. That set off an economically perilous trade clash, as China retaliated by clamping down on exports of minerals and magnets that are critical to American factories, including automakers and defense manufacturers. China's decision to cut off access to those materials upended the dynamic between the world's largest economies. The Trump administration, which came into office determined to bully China into changing its trade behavior with punishing tariffs, appeared to realize the perils of that approach. Now, the administration has resorted to trying to woo China instead. Officials throughout the government say the Trump administration is putting more aggressive actions on China on hold, while pushing forward with moves that the Chinese will perceive positively. That includes the reversal on the H20 chip. The H20 decision was primarily motivated by top Trump officials who agreed with Nvidia's arguments that selling the chip would be better for American technology leadership than withholding it, people familiar with the move say. But Trump officials have also claimed that it was part of the trade talks. After telling Congress in June that there was 'no quid pro quo in terms of chips for rare earths,' Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, reversed those comments on July 15, saying that the H20 move was 'all part of a mosaic' of talks with China. 'They had things we wanted, we had things they wanted, and we're in a very good place,' he said. Image A chip from Nvidia. The company's chief executive, Jensen Huang, has gone on a lobbying blitz in Washington, pushing politicians to open China for A.I. chip sales. Credit... Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times A Chinese Ministry of Commerce official seemed to reject that on Friday, saying that the United States had 'taken the initiative' to approve the H20 sales. China believes the U.S. should continue to remove its trade and economic restrictions, the official said. A person familiar with the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the H20 chip was not specifically discussed in meetings between Chinese and American officials in Geneva and London this spring. But the reversal was part of a more recent cadence of warmer actions the United States and China have taken toward each other. For instance, Beijing agreed in recent weeks to block the export of several chemicals used to make fentanyl, an issue Mr. Trump has been concerned about. Recent events have underscored the influence that China has over the U.S. economy. When Mr. Trump raised tariffs on Chinese exports in April, some top Trump officials thought Beijing would quickly fold, given its recent economic weakness. Instead, Beijing called Mr. Trump's bluff by restricting rare earths needed by American makers of cars, military equipment, medical devices and electronics. As the flow of those materials stopped, Mr. Trump and other officials began receiving calls from chief executives saying their factories would soon shut down. Ford, Suzuki and other companies shuttered factories because of the lack of supply. Mr. Trump and his top advisers were surprised by the threat that Beijing's countermove posed, people familiar with the matter say. That brought the United States back to the negotiating table this spring to strike a fragile trade truce, which Trump officials are now wary of upsetting. That agreement dropped tariffs from a minimum 145 percent to 30 percent, with the Chinese agreeing to allow rare earths to flow as freely as before. The administration's caution when it comes to China has been amplified by Mr. Trump's desire for an invitation to Beijing later this year. The president, who has been feted on other foreign trips, wants to engage in face-to-face trade negotiations with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, has begun recruiting chief executives for a potential delegation, setting off a competition over who will get to ride in Air Force One, according to people familiar with the plans. Craig Allen, a retired diplomat, said both countries were 'clearly preparing for a summit meeting,' adding, 'that's bringing forth measures that the other side wants and it's also holding back measures that the other side doesn't want.' 'It's like a dance,' Mr. Allen said. 'One side makes a move, the other side makes a move to correspond to that.' The Commerce Department declined to comment. The White House, the Treasury Department and the Office of the United States Trade Representative did not respond to a request for comment. 'The government understands that forcing the world to use foreign competition would only hurt America's economic and national security,' John Rizzo, a spokesman for Nvidia, said. A Chinese bargaining chip Opposition to China has fueled bipartisan action for the last decade. Now, Mr. Trump's more hawkish supporters are quietly watching as the president remakes the party's China strategy. Though few are willing to speak out publicly, officials in the Trump administration and in Congress have privately expressed concern that the trade war has given China an opening to finally bring U.S. technology controls onto the negotiating table. Christopher Padilla, a former export control official in the George W. Bush administration, said the fact that the United States was now negotiating over what were supposed to be security restrictions was 'a significant accomplishment for the Chinese.' 'They've been after this for decades, and now they've succeeded,' he said. 'I assume the Chinese are going to demand more concessions on export controls in return for whatever we want next.' Mr. Trump was the first to harness the power of U.S. export controls, by targeting Chinese tech giant Huawei and putting global restrictions on American technology in his first term. But the Biden administration expanded those rules. Concerned that China's growing A.I. capacity would advance its military, Biden officials cracked down on exports of Nvidia chips, seeing them as the most effective choke point over Chinese A.I. capabilities. Image President Trump and Mr. Huang at the White House in April. Mr. Huang argues that blocking U.S. technology from China has created more urgency for China to develop its own technology. Credit... Pete Marovich for The New York Times Since then, when Chinese officials raised their objections to U.S. technology controls in meetings, U.S. officials had responded by insisting that the measures were national security matters and not up for debate. But in the meeting in Geneva in May, China finally had a powerful counterargument. Beijing insisted that its minerals and magnets, some of which go to fighter jets, drones and weaponry, were a 'dual-use' technology that could be used for the military as well as civilian industries, just like A.I. and chips. It demanded reciprocity: If the United States wanted a steady flow of rare earths, Washington should also be ready to lessen its technology controls. It's not clear exactly what the United States agreed to in Geneva: The White House released a joint statement about the meeting, though more detailed text has not been made public. But when the United States put out an unrelated export control announcement the day after the Geneva summit concluded, China responded angrily, saying the statement 'undermined the consensus' the countries had reached. In a notice on May 13, the Commerce Department said that using Huawei's A.I. chips 'anywhere in the world' was an export control violation. The notice was directed at other nations considering purchasing Huawei chips, people familiar with the move said, not the Chinese. The announcement appeared to take other parts of the Trump administration by surprise, and within hours, the language in the release was walked back, though no policy changes were made. Mr. Bessent and Jamieson Greer, the trade representative, expressed concerns that such moves could damage trade talks with China, people familiar with the incident said. China once again clamped down on rare earth exports. Trying to find its own leverage, the United States responded by restricting exports of semiconductor design software, airplane parts and ethane. The two sides restored their truce in a meeting in London in June. Since then, trade in those products has restarted. But U.S. companies complain that Chinese licenses for rare earth magnets are limited to six months, and that the Chinese government is requesting proprietary information to obtain those shipments. Beijing has also continued to build out its export controls. On July 15, the day after Nvidia said it would be permitted to sell the H20 in China, Chinese officials announced new restrictions on exports of battery technology. The United States has been trying to decrease its dependence on China for rare earths, but there is no quick solution. China has a powerful hold over numerous industries, ranging from pharmaceuticals to solar panels to drones. 'The challenge for the Trump administration is, how do they get out of this quagmire?' said Jimmy Goodrich, a senior adviser for technology analysis to the RAND Corporation. 'It appears some competitive U.S. actions are now at the whims of Beijing, who can now determine the time, place and nature of U.S. tech and trade policy toward China.' Deal makers in the White House The change in the relationship with China has coincided with a separate shift in the administration, in which officials who favor technology controls on China have been sidelined in favor of those who support the tech industry's ambitions to sell abroad. Mr. Lutnick and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state who has long been an ardent China critic, have hewed closely to the position of the president, who is more of a deal maker than a national security hawk. And hawkish members of the National Security Council have been fired in recent months, after being accused of insufficient loyalty. Their absence has paved the way for officials like David Sacks, the White House A.I. czar, who has criticized export controls, to push for tech companies to have freer rein. Nvidia's chief executive, Jensen Huang, has gone on a lobbying blitz in Washington, pushing politicians to open China for A.I. chip sales. Mr. Huang has contended that blocking U.S. technology from China has backfired by creating more urgency for China to develop its own technology. He has argued that the Chinese military won't use Nvidia chips, and pushed back against Washington's consensus that China is an adversary, describing it a 'competitor' but 'not our enemy.' Image The change in the U.S. relationship with China has coincided with a separate shift in the Trump administration, in which officials who favor technology controls on China have been sidelined. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times Others have challenged those assertions, pointing to past research that the Chinese military has placed orders for Nvidia chips. Scientific papers published earlier this year also showed Chinese researchers with ties to military universities and a top nuclear weapons lab using Nvidia chips for general research. Mr. Rizzo, the Nvidia spokesman, said in a statement that 'non-military papers describing new and beneficial ways to use U.S. technology promote America.' In a letter on Friday, John Moolenaar, the Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on China, said the H20 chip had aided the rise of the Chinese A.I. model DeepSeek and would help China develop A.I. models to compete with American ones. These arguments do not appear to have persuaded the president. In an Oval Office meeting with Mr. Huang in July, Mr. Trump agreed with Nvidia that keeping American chips out of China would only help Huawei, and decided to reverse the H20 ban. People familiar with Mr. Trump's views say he has always viewed export controls more transactionally. In his first term, Mr. Trump agreed to roll back U.S. restrictions on ZTE at the urging of Mr. Xi. In this term, Mr. Trump and his advisers have begun using America's control over A.I. chips as a source of leverage in negotiations with governments from the Middle East to Asia. With China, Mr. Trump has his own longstanding aspirations. He believes that U.S. businesses have been getting ripped off for decades, and that he can be the one to fix it, particularly if he negotiates directly with Mr. Xi. His advisers have begun strategizing toward a more substantial trade negotiation with China focused on market opening, as well as the potential visit this fall.
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
EU Sanctions Against India's Nayara ‘Unjustified,' Rosneft Says
Newly imposed European sanctions against India's Nayara Energy refinery are 'unjustified and illegal,' according to Russian oil major Rosneft PJSC that co-owns the facility. The European Union on Friday adopted the 18th package of restrictions targeting Russia and its oil trade in condemnation of the invasion in Ukraine. The measures included sanctions against the Indian crude-processing facility, in which Rosneft holds 49.13%, as the bloc seeks to reduce the Kremlin's energy revenues that have been supported by Russian crude exports to India.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
JP Morgan Chase Have A Point, But The Whole Economy Needs Data To Flow
INDIA - 2025/07/14: In this photo illustration, a JPMorgan logo is seen displayed on a smartphone ... More with a JPMorgan Chase Co logo in the background. (Photo Illustration by Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) The not entirely unexpected news that JP Morgan Chase intends to start charging for customers' data that is obtained by third parties through APIs, data that is provided free through 'open banking' in other parts of the world, is causing significant comment across the fintech sector. Data Needs A Business Model The planned charges would affect how fintech platforms access information through intermediaries, particularly data aggregators like Plaid and MX. who provide the infrastructure layer that sits between banks and third parties. As Jason Mikula pointed out, if these aggregators are forced to begin paying banks on a per data access basis, those costs will inevitably be passed along to aggregators' fintech customers, and, presumably, those fintechs' end users. This may make some of the services unviable, which will in turn reshape the market in a couple of ways: For the economy as a whole to benefit we therefore need to find a compromise that would allow the banks to earn a reasonable return on the data but also benefit the wider economy. In other jurisdictions, that compromise takes the essential form of 'basic and 'premium' services., which seems a reasonable way of working, so my high-level view is that there should be a standard model put in place to encourage the use of bank data for the greater good while providing balanced rewards. Using the language of cards, this means resolving interchange and liability. In other words, who gets paid what when things work properly and who compensates whom when things go wrong. It seems to me that it should hardly beyond the bounds of human ingenuity to find appropriate solutions. For example, the regulators might decide that the banks will earn zero interchange on basic facts about the account holder but they can earn whatever interchange they set for other premium services that they want to provide (an example might be giving a 'safe to spend' limit for the purposes of regulated gambling). In return for fees, the banks will also have to accept liability. I would need to defer to someone like Tom Brown, but I would've thought it might be possible to construct a solution that is based on transactional but not contingent liabilities. In other words if I give you a loan because I think you have an account with a certain amount of money in it and it later turns out that it wasn't you then the bank should be liable to the value of the loan but not beyond it. Identity is the new... well, you know. Open Banking, Open Data There is, however, another aspect beyond such "interchange fees' where I do actually feel the banks have a reasonable complaint and that is symmetry. The banks argue with complete justification that open banking does not create a level playing field for competition if they are required by law to provide basic customer data for nothing whereas third parties are not. They would argue that if they have to provide customer data to a social media company, for example, then the social media company should provide social graph data to the bank. (This is an argument that's been raging for years in Europe and the example of the Consumer Data Right in Australia shows one way forward here.) Taking all of this together, I think the principle of banks being allowed to charge something for customer data is sound provided it is within a framework set by the regulators to maximise the net welfare and not to maximise the profits of commercial banks. The fact is that allowing customer data to flow, under an equitable arrangement, is good not only for banks and fintechs but for society as a whole. Open Data And Open Minds This is not only about open banking data. There is another, bigger picture here. In a paper on "The Data Economy: Market Size and Global Trade" for the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (part of the UK's National Institute of Economic and Social Research), Diane Coyle and Wendy Li wrote about the "data gap" between global Big Tech and potential competitors, disruptors and innovators. They argue (convincingly) that this data gap is a a barrier to entry that affects not only businesses but also aggregate innovation, investment and trade. Similarly, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR, a prominent think tank) published a call for action on "Defending Europe's Economic Sovereignty" in which it called for the EU (and the UK) not to put up barriers at all but to agree data free-flow with the US. Coule and Li conclude that an open data-sharing ecosystem will increase productivity and therefore economic wellbeing. From my inexpert perspective, I could not agree more, so if I were the CEO of a US bank, I might therefore be tempted to play a longer game. I would go to the industry and say something like the... I know this sounds radical, but I hope that US regulators will, in time, choose this path, a path that grows the pie while ensuring that everyone, including banks, gets a fair slice.
