| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 (‘THE ACT’) AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND REGULATIONS) REQUIREMENT, 2015; THE BOARD DURING THE YEAR ADOPTED A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR EVALUATION OF ITS PERFORMANCES AS WELL AS THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURED MECHANISM WAS PREPARED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INPUTS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS, COVERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BOARD’S FUNCTIONING SUCH AS ADEQUACY OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, BOARD CULTURE, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE. A SEPARATE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WHO WERE EVALUATED ON PARAMETERS SUCH AS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT, SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS. |
| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 ('THE ACT') AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND REGULATIONS) REQUIREMENT, 2015; THE BOARD DURING THE YEAR ADOPTED A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR EVALUATION OF ITS PERFORMANCES AS WELLAS THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURED MECHANISM WAS PREPARED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INPUTS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS, COVERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BOARD'S FUNCTIONING SUCH AS ADEQUACY OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, BOARD CULTURE, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE. A SEPARATE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WHO WERE EVALUATED ONPARAMETERS SUCH AS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OFJUDGMENT, SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITYSHAREHOLDERS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WASCARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS.THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS. |
| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 (THE ACT) AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND REGULATIONS) REQUIREMENT, 2015; THE BOARD DURING THE YEAR ADOPTED A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR EVALUATION OF ITS PERFORMANCES AS WELL AS THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURED MECHANISM WAS PREPARED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INPUTS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS, COVERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BOARD'S FUNCTIONING SUCH AS ADEQUACY OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, BOARD CULTURE, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE. A SEPARATE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WHO WERE EVALUATED ON PARAMETERS SUCH AS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT, SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS. |
| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 ('THE ACT') AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND REGULATIONS) REQUIREMENT, 2015; THE BOARD DURING THE YEAR ADOPTED A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR EVALUATION OF ITS PERFORMANCES AS WELL AS THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURED MECHANISM WAS PREPARED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INPUTS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS, COVERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BOARD'S FUNCTIONING SUCH AS ADEQUACY OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, BOARD CULTURE, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE. A SEPARATE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WHO WERE EVALUATED ON PARAMETERS SUCH AS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT, SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS. |
| A FORMAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF THE BOARD’S PERFORMANCE, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT AND THE LISTING REGULATIONS, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ‘GUIDANCE NOTE ON BOARD EVALUATION’ DATED JANUARY 5, 2017 ISSUED BY SEBI. IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK, THE BOARD HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THE DIRECTORS INDIVIDUALLY AND THE WORKING OF ITS COMMITTEES. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION INTER ALIA INCLUDE PROVIDING STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, ATTENDANCE AND PREPAREDNESS FOR THE MEETINGS, CONTRIBUTION AT THE MEETINGS AND ROLE OF THE COMMITTEES. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONING, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, BOARD AS A WHOLE AND THE CHAIRMAN WERE EVALUATED AT SEPARATE MEETINGS OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE MEETINGS OF THE NRC AND THE BOARD. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS DONE BY THE ENTIRE BOARD, EXCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR BEING EVALUATED. |
| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 (‘THE ACT’) AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND REGULATIONS) REQUIREMENT, 2015; THE BOARD DURING THE YEAR ADOPTED A FORMAL MECHANISM FOR EVALUATION OF ITS PERFORMANCES AS WELL AS THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. A STRUCTURED MECHANISM WAS PREPARED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INPUTS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS, COVERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE BOARD’S FUNCTIONING SUCH AS ADEQUACY OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, BOARD CULTURE, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE. A SEPARATE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WHO WERE EVALUATED ON PARAMETERS SUCH AS LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGMENT, SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY AND ITS MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS. |
| A FORMAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF THE BOARD’S PERFORMANCE, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT AND THE LISTING REGULATIONS, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ‘GUIDANCE NOTE ON BOARD EVALUATION’ DATED JANUARY 5, 2017 ISSUED BY SEBI.IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK, THE BOARD HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THE DIRECTORS INDIVIDUALLY AND THE WORKING OF ITS COMMITTEES. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION INTER ALIA INCLUDE PROVIDING STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, ATTENDANCE AND PREPAREDNESS FOR THE MEETINGS, CONTRIBUTION AT THE MEETINGS AND ROLE OF THE COMMITTEES. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONING, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ETC.THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, BOARD AS A WHOLE AND THE CHAIRMAN WERE EVALUATED AT SEPARATE MEETINGS OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE MEETINGS OF THE NRC AND THE BOARD. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS DONE BY THE ENTIRE BOARD, EXCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR BEING EVALUATED. |
| A FORMAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF THE BOARD’S PERFORMANCE, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT AND THE LISTING REGULATIONS, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ‘GUIDANCE NOTE ON BOARD EVALUATION’ DATED JANUARY 5, 2017 ISSUED BY SEBI. IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK, THE BOARD HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THE DIRECTORS INDIVIDUALLY AND THE WORKING OF ITS COMMITTEES. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION INTER ALIA INCLUDE PROVIDING STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, ATTENDANCE AND PREPAREDNESS FOR THE MEETINGS, CONTRIBUTION AT THE MEETINGS AND ROLE OF THE COMMITTEES. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONING, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, BOARD AS A WHOLE AND THE CHAIRMAN WERE EVALUATED AT SEPARATE MEETINGS OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE MEETINGS OF THE NRC AND THE BOARD. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS DONE BY THE ENTIRE BOARD, EXCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR BEING EVALUATED. |
| A FORMAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF THE BOARD’S PERFORMANCE, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT AND THE LISTING REGULATIONS, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ‘GUIDANCE NOTE ON BOARD EVALUATION’ DATED JANUARY 5, 2017 ISSUED BY SEBI. IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK, THE BOARD HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THE DIRECTORS INDIVIDUALLY AND THE WORKING OF ITS COMMITTEES. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION INTER ALIA INCLUDE PROVIDING STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES, ATTENDANCE AND PREPAREDNESS FOR THE MEETINGS, CONTRIBUTION AT THE MEETINGS AND ROLE OF THE COMMITTEES. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONING, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BASED ON CRITERIA SUCH AS THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ETC. THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, BOARD AS A WHOLE AND THE CHAIRMAN WERE EVALUATED AT SEPARATE MEETINGS OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE MEETINGS OF THE NRC AND THE BOARD. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS DONE BY THE ENTIRE BOARD, EXCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR BEING EVALUATED. |