Washington, Oct 25 (IANS) For the fifth year in a row, Reliance Industries Limited chairman Mukesh Ambani retains the top spot in the Forbes magazine's list of India's 100 richest, with a net worth of $21 billion, despite his fortune being down $1.6 billion.
Steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal lost $3.2 billion but holds on at No. 2 slot as India's 100 richest made modest gains with the Bombay Stock Exchange Sensex rising by 10 percent over the past 12 months, a rise partially eroded by a weakening rupee that fell by 8 percent.
They are now worth $250 billion, up from $241 billion a year ago. But those gains were uneven, as seven lost more than a billion and six gained at least that, according to the list published in the Nov 5 issue of Forbes Asia.
The biggest dollar gainer was pharma tycoon Dilip Shanghvi, who broke into the top five for the first time with a $2.5 billion jump, as shares of his Sun Pharmaceutical soared.
Fellow pharma entrepreneur, Wockhardt's Habil Khorakiwala, who rejoined the billionaire ranks, was this year's biggest percentage gainer.
There are now 61 billionaires in all, four more than last year.
Among them are the Hinduja brothers, who debut with an estimated $8-billion fortune.
While three of the storied siblings are not Indian citizens, their expanding business ties to India made them candidates this year, Forbes said.
They are the richest of 11 newcomers, even as the minimum net worth increased to $460 million, from $370 million last year.
The youngest newcomer is 40-year-old Ranjan Pai, credited with turning his Manipal Group into a global brand in education.
More than one-third of the 89 who returned to the ranks this year are worse off.
The biggest loser is Gautam Adani, owner of India's largest private-sector port, who lost more than half his fortune - $4.3 billion, Forbes said.
The top ten are: 1 Mukesh Ambani, 2 Lakshmi Mittal, 3 Azim Premji, 4 Pallonji Mistry, 5 Dilip Shanghvi, 6 Adi Godrej & family, 7 Savitri Jindal & family, 8 Shashi & Ravi Ruia, 9 Hinduja Brothers, and 10 Kumar Birla.
null
|
Comments: