Latest news with #Ghadi
India.com
5 days ago
- Business
- India.com
Meet Uttar Pradesh's richest man, who earned thousands of crores by selling detergent, his name is…, net worth is Rs….
Uttar Pradesh is one of India's major states, but very few people know who its richest person is. The title goes to Muralidhar Gyanchandani, whose net worth is at Rs 12,000 crore. He owns the company which makes Ghadi detergent. Who Is Muralidhar Gyanchandani? Muralidhar Gyanchandani is a businessman and the owner of RSPL Group, the company that produces Ghadi detergent. RSPL is a major player in India's FMCG market, it has products ranging from detergent powder and soap to footwear and dairy. In the footwear segment, the group owns the Red Chief brand. Muralidhar is the RSPL's Chairman. The detergent and soap business was founded by his father, Dayaldas Gyanchandani, who used to manufacture oil soap from glycerine along with detergents. Over time, the venture evolved into the major Ghadi brand under the RSPL Group. Second-richest Man In UP The second-richest person in Uttar Pradesh is Muralidhar's brother, Bimal Gyanchandani, whose net worth is Rs 10,500 crore. Bimal Gyanchandani Bimal Gyanchandani, with a net worth of Rs 9,000 crore, is Muralidhar's brother. Together, they started the Ghadi detergent and soap business. Vijay Shekhar Sharma With a net worth of Rs 8,000 crore, Vijay Shekhar Sharma is the founder of the digital payments app Paytm. He comes from Aligarh and is also among the richest entrepreneurs in India. Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Founder of IndiaMART, a leading B2B e-commerce marketplace, Dinesh Chandra Agarwal's net worth stands at Rs 5,400 crore. He is based in Noida. Sachin Agarwal Co-founder of Policybazaar, Sachin Agarwal has a net worth of Rs 4,800 crore. His company offers various insurance plans.
Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Delhi High Court directs Ghadi detergent to drop ‘derogatory' references to Surf Excel from ads
The Delhi High Court on June 20 directed the manufacturers of Ghadi detergent powder to remove 'derogatory' phrases targeting its competitor Surf Excel from its television and digital advertisements. The court passed the interim order in a suit by Hindustan Unilever Limited, which manufactures Surf Excel, against RSPL Limited, the makers of Ghadi. It asked RSPL to remove phrases targeting Surf Excel by June 24 before continuing the broadcast of these advertisements. The case will next be heard on July 16. Ghari detergent has recently come up with advertisements featuring phrases such as 'Na na, yeh dhoka hai (No, no, this is a fraud)' and 'Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey (Your product makes tall claims but can't wash well)'. They also included the line, 'Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai (Its foam is good, price is good)', and referenced a blue detergent called XL Blue. In Ghadi's advertisements, actor Ravi Kishan can be seen telling a woman who has entered a store to buy detergent, 'Madam, ye sirf naam me excel hai (This is only 'excel' in the name)'. Just as she is about to make her choice, Kishan interrupts her and persuades her to put down the blue-coloured detergent. This strategy raised concerns for HUL as it perceived the advertisements from its competitor as a direct defamation of its product. It argued that the phrases used by Ghadi were variations of Surf Excel's well-known tagline 'Daag ache hain'. Initially, HUL issued a cease-and-desist notice (a formal warning from one business to another about unlawful actions) to RSPL Limited. When RSPL chose not to accept the notice, HUL filed the lawsuit in the Delhi High Court. In its suit, HUL claimed that four advertisements launched by RSPL in June 2025 targeted and ridiculed Surf Excel. In the interim order, Justice Pratibha M Singh noted, '…the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the manner in which the advertisements themselves flow, from a lay persons point of view, clearly the reference that is being made to the competitor's product by the Defendant (RSPL) could be taken to be 'Surf Excel' i.e. product of the Plaintiff.' '…it is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor's product,' the court ruled.
