So Company did not copy any film! I would say it took some ideas from Scarface, but is not a copy. There's nothing wrong with taking ideas, but it's wrong when they copy. If you can say Company copied Scarface, you might as well say Satya also copied Scarface because both films are about young men who come to a new city/country and get involved with gangsters, starting off at the low and end moving up the ranks only to go down in a hail of bullets in the end, leaving their woman behind.
Company is more similar to the storyline of Goodfellas, as both films show how an outsider gets involved in the underworld, becomes a part of it, loving every second of the gangster life until falling out and having to co-operate with the police in order to save his own ass. Think about the similarites. I found it laughable that Ram Gopal Varma claimed to have never seen any Scorsese film in his life, when a western critic compared his films to Scorsese.

And he's supposed to be a cinephile-turned-director? RGV really has no shame!
Agneepath clearly copied more of Scarface as Aatank Hi Aatank is a direct copy of The Godfather. The only scene Sarkar copied from the Godfather was the hospital scene. Through you can see many examples from the Godfather that RGV "changed around" for Sarkar.
As for the person who posted Khalid Mohammed 's review of Aag, Khalid Mohammed should shut his mouth on critising any film after he made the ridiculous error of having an adult Hrithik play a 10-year old in the beginning of Fiza as well as Karisma playing his 13-year old sister.
Film critics don't always make good directors. That may have worked in France in the 60's, but can you imagine if Taran Adarsh started making films?
As for Aag, everyone is dissing it, even his fans. There's not one person I've come across who even thought it was OK.