Mukesh Ambani hits record! raised Rs 178000000000 in just…, receives massive response to 3 schemes of…
Jio BlackRock Liquid Fund
Jio BlackRock Money Market Fund
Jio BlackRock NFO
The NFO was open for only three days from June 30 to July 2, 2025. Despite the short timespan, the offering received huge investments from over 90 institutional investors. The company follows a data-driven investment approach and operates through digital-first systems. The response from retail investors was also good. As more than 67,000 individuals participated in the fund offerings.
'These first funds offered by JioBlackRock Asset Management provide a broad range of investors choice to manage different elements of cash and short-term allocations, and put cash to work for meeting differing liquidity, risk and return objectives. Short duration debt and money market mutual funds are a solution for investors looking to get yield by holding lower-volatility and short-term funds, without locking into a long-term commitment and providing clients with the flexibility to meet their liquidity needs,' Jio BlackRock Asset Management Private Limited said. Jio BlackRock Ranking
The NFO, which closed on July 2, 2025, is now one of the largest cash/debt fund offerings in the country. Jio BlackRock Asset Management was ranked as India's top 15 asset management companies (AMCs), out of a total of 47 fund houses. The funds offered by Jio BlackRock provide investors tools to manage liquidity and short-term allocation needs, helping them balance liquidity, risk, and return based on their individual goals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Congress targets govt, SEBI on Jane Street ‘market manipulation'
The Congress on Tuesday hit out at the SEBI and the government for not taking timely action against US algorithm trading firm Jane Street for 'stock market manipulation'. Congress head of social media department Supriya Shrinate said Jane Street had in 2024 admitted in a US court it made $1 billion in India in 2023 from the Indian options market by exploiting 'inefficiencies'. 'By 2024, that amount grew to $2.3 billion, which was 11.2% of all the money it made around the world. But SEBI didn't act on this information, it was only in February 2025 that SEBI issued a mild warning, a cautionary letter to Jane Street, warning against its questionable trading patterns. But the firm continued its manipulative trades till as late as May 2025,' Shrinate said. Criticising SEBI, she said its 'report shows that 93% of retail investors lost money in derivatives trading between FY2021 and FY2024'. 'In FY2024 alone, 91.1% of traders lost Rs 52,400 crore,' she said. She said instead of protecting small investors, SEBI turned a blind eye to 'rampant fraudulent activities'.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
8 years on, Madhuban Bapudham rail overbridge may be ready this year
Ghaziabad: In the works since 2017, the 600m-long railway overbridge in Madhuban Bapudham may finally see the light of day by the end of this year. The GDA-mandated project is being executed by two agencies – UP Bridge Corporation and Indian Railways – and has missed several deadlines over fund crisis, delayed clearances, and a lack of consensus between the agencies. GDA official Rudresh Shukla said that the agencies have now assured that the project will be completed soon. "The UP Bridge Corporation, which is developing the approach road on both sides of the rail overbridge, has completed about 80% of the work, while the railway has drawn up a plan for the rail overbridge, which will start shortly," he said. The rail overbridge is planned to be 45m wide and 600m long and will offer a much-needed link between Madhuban Bapudham on one side and Meerut Road and Hapur on the other. Currently, residents of Madhuban Bapudham must take a detour of about 14 km to reach Delhi and Meerut to reach the township. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The link will also improve connectivity for Govindpuram, Swarnjyantipuram, Rahispur, and Harsaon areas. With improved connectivity in the area, GDA's Madhuban Bapudham housing scheme, which is spread over an area of 1,234 acres with 11,680 HIG, MIG, and LIG flats, will find more buyers, officials said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 7 All-Inclusive Destinations That Accept Credit Card Rewards Liseer Learn More Undo Delays so far have led to a cost escalation of more than 20%. While the railway initially pegged an estimate of Rs 26 crore for the overbridge, since 2017, the cost has gone up to over Rs 34 crore. The Train Vehicle Unit (TUV) model was employed to provide cost estimates, which is measured at a crossing by multiplying the number of trains with the number of road vehicles passing over the level crossing in 24 hours. Its final computation led to the current cost estimates. Costs for the approach road, which the UP Bridge Corporation is constructing, have also gone up to Rs 53 crore. The project has been embroiled in delays, first because the design of the overbridge had to be altered and later due to a shortage of funds. As per norms, if the cost escalation for a project is 20% or more, it has to get approval from the GDA board. The board granted approval for the same last year with a direction to expedite the work.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Builder Can't Be Penalised For Authority's Delay In Approving Plans: Allahabad High Court
Last Updated: The court granted relief to M/s Kinetic Buildtech Pvt Ltd on cancellation of allotment by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) The Allahabad High Court has held that a developer cannot be faulted for construction delays when the development authority itself fails to act on the building plan or hand over lawful possession of the land. The bench of Justice Prakash Padia, allowing a writ petition filed by M/s Kinetic Buildtech Pvt Ltd, quashed Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA)'s decision to cancel a plot allotted to the builder and forfeit Rs 10.64 crore, the initial premium deposit, over alleged default in payment and construction. Kinetic Buildtech was allotted a 22,000-square-metre plot in Sector-10 of Greater Noida in 2014. A lease deed was executed in 2015, following which the company paid the mandatory 20% premium. However, the developer contended that it was never given actual physical possession of the plot as per the site plan annexed with the lease deed. Later on, there was a unilateral change in the site layout by GNIDA. A modified layout was introduced on July 9, 2015, but was never communicated to the builder until years later, during a revision hearing. Even then, the possession letter bore no signature of the person handing over or receiving possession, which the court noted made it merely 'paperwork" and 'no actual physical possession". The court also found that while the developer had submitted a building plan and even deposited a processing fee of Rs 38 lakh, GNIDA never decided on the application. A letter raising objections to the plan was allegedly sent in May 2016, but the court observed that there was no proof that this letter was ever served to the petitioner. In light of these findings, the high court concluded that GNIDA's actions—failing to hand over possession, not executing a corrected lease deed, and leaving the construction application pending—could not be used as grounds to punish the petitioner. 'The development authority kept the application for grant of permission for construction pending with him, as such, it cannot be blamed that petitioner has not carried on the construction within the stipulated period…Thus, the petitioner cannot be blamed and charged for the same," the court held. The court cited the SC judgment in the case of Municipal Committee Katra & others Vs Ashwani Kumar (2024), and said no party should be allowed to profit from its own wrongdoing. 'The development authority itself had faulted in not delivering possession and not taking a decision on the application for construction. For this, the petitioner cannot be penalised," it held. Accordingly, the court set aside the cancellation orders and directed GNIDA to execute the required correction deed and extend the construction deadline accordingly. First Published:
