| PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND SEBI LISTING REGULATIONS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD ITSELFAFTER SEEKING THE INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF BOARD CULTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, FUNCTIONING, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM RESPECTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND QUALITY OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, ETC. THE BOARD REVIEWED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS LIKE PREPAREDNESS ON THE ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED, MEANINGFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION AND INPUTS IN MEETINGS ETC. IN ADDITION, THE CHAIRMAN WAS ALSO EVALUATED ON THE KEY ASPECTS OF HIS ROLE. IN A SEPARATE MEETING OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, PERFORMANCE OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CHAIRMAN WAS EVALUATED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. ALL THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS |
| IN COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 134(3)(P) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8(4) OF THE COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) RULES, 2014, THE BOARD CARRIED OUT ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUT FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA, SUCH AS COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD, QUALITY OF DELIBERATIONS, EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, PARTICIPATION AT THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, GOVERNANCE REVIEWS ETC. PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WAS EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF CRITERIA LIKE TRANSPARENCY, ANALYTICAL ABILITIES, QUALIFICATIONS, LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, EXPERIENCE, PARTICIPATION IN THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC PLANNING AND RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULDERED. |
| IN COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 134(3)(P) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8(4) OF THE COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) RULES, 2014, THE BOARD CARRIED OUT ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, THAT OF ITS COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUT FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA, SUCH AS COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD, QUALITY OF DELIBERATIONS, EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, PARTICIPATION AT THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, GOVERNANCE REVIEWS ETC. PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WAS EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF CRITERIA LIKE TRANSPARENCY, ANALYTICAL ABILITIES, QUALIFICATIONS, LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, EXPERIENCE, PARTICIPATION IN THE LONG-TERM STRATEGIC PLANNING AND RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULDERED. |
| PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND SEBI LISTING REGULATIONS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS CARRIED OUT THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD ITSELFAFTER SEEKING THE INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF BOARD CULTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, FUNCTIONING, EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC DUTIES, OBLIGATIONS AND GOVERNANCE ETC. THE PERFORMANCE OF COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM RESPECTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND QUALITY OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, ETC. THE BOARD REVIEWED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS LIKE PREPAREDNESS ON THE ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED, MEANINGFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION AND INPUTS IN MEETINGS ETC. IN ADDITION, THE CHAIRMAN WAS ALSO EVALUATED ON THE KEY ASPECTS OF HIS ROLE. IN A SEPARATE MEETING OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, PERFORMANCE OF NON-INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CHAIRMAN WAS EVALUATED, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. ALL THE DIRECTORS EXPRESSED THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE EVALUATION PROCESS |