| PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, PEER EVALUATION OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THE EVALUATION OF THE WORKING OF BOARD’S COMMITTEES WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION PROCESS WERE FOLLOWED:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE CONDUCTED THE EVALUATION PROCESS, INTER ALIA, BASED ON ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATION INTER SE BOARD MEMBERS, THE TIME SPENT BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORE COMPETENCIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE.THE REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WAS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD AND FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH DIRECTORS WERE SATISFACTORY. |
| PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, PEER EVALUATION OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THE EVALUATION OF THE WORKING OF BOARD’S COMMITTEES WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION PROCESS WERE FOLLOWED: A. EVALUATION CRITERIA THIS EVALUATION IS LED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE WITH A SPECIFIC FOCUS ON THE PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES. THE EVALUATION PROCESS, INTER ALIA, CONSIDERS ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATION INTER SE BOARD MEMBERS, THE TIME SPENT BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORE COMPETENCIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE. B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE CONDUCTED THE EVALUATION PROCESS, INTER ALIA, BASED ON ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATION INTER SE BOARD MEMBERS, THE TIME SPENT BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORE COMPETENCIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE. THE REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WAS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD AND FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH DIRECTORS WERE SATISFACTORY. |
| PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. 2013, PEER EVALUATION OF ALL BOARD MEMBERS, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF ITS OWN PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THE EVALUATION OF THE WORKING OF BOARD’S COMMITTEES WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION PROCESS WERE FOLLOWED: A. EVALUATION CRITERIA THIS EVALUATION IS LED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE WITH A SPECIFIC FOCUS ON THE PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES. THE EVALUATION PROCESS, INTER ALIA, CONSIDERS ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATION INTER SE BOARD MEMBERS, THE TIME SPENT BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORE COMPETENCIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE. B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE CONDUCTED THE EVALUATION PROCESS, INTER ALIA, BASED ON ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATION INTER SE BOARD MEMBERS, THE TIME SPENT BY EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, CORE COMPETENCIES, PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPERTISE. THE REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WAS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD AND FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS. THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH DIRECTORS WERE SATISFACTORY. C. BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM ALL THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVENESS OF BOARD PROCESSES, INFORMATION AND FUNCTIONING ETC. A SEPARATE MEETING OF THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WAS HELD ON 18TH MARCH, 2025, PURSUANT TO CLAUSE VII OF SCHEDULE IV TO THE ACT, TO 1. REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NONINDEPENDENT DIRECTORS AND THE BOARD AS A WHOLE. 2. REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS EXPRESSED SATISFACTION OVER THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE NONINDEPENDENT DIRECTORS AND THE CHAIRMAN. D. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE COMMITTEE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMITTEES WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD AFTER SEEKING INPUTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA SUCH AS THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES, EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ETC. |