THE COMPANY HAS DEVISED A POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE BOARD, COMMITTEES AND OTHER INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS (INCLUDING INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS) WHICH INCLUDES CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. THE EVALUATION PROCESS INTER ALIA CONSIDERS ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS AT BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS, ACQUAINTANCE WITH BUSINESS, COMMUNICATING INTER- SE BOARD MEMBERS, EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION, DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE, COMPLIANCE WITH CODE OF CONDUCT, VISION AND STRATEGY, BENCHMARKS ESTABLISHED BY GLOBAL PEERS, ETC., WHICH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES. THE BOARD CARRIED OUT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE BOARD, BOARD COMMITTEES AND INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS AND CHAIRMAN. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RESPECTIVE BOARD COMMITTEES SHARED THE REPORT ON EVALUATION WITH THE RESPECTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH COMMITTEE WAS EVALUATED BY THE BOARD, BASED ON REPORT ON EVALUATION RECEIVED FROM RESPECTIVE BOARD COMMITTEES. THE REPORTS ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS WERE REVIEWED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND SEBI (LISTING OBLIGATIONS AND DISCLOSURES REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS, 2015, THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION WAS CARRIED OUT AS UNDER BOARD: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA SUGGESTED BY THE NOMINATION AND REMUNERATION COMMITTEE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVALUATED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD, HAVING REGARD TO VARIOUS CRITERIA SUCH AS BOARD COMPOSITION, BOARD PROCESSES, BOARD DYNAMICS ETC. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, AT THEIR SEPARATE MEETINGS, ALSO EVALUATED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE BASED ON VARIOUS CRITERIA SPECIFIED BY COMPANIES ACT, 2013. THE BOARD AND THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WERE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT PERFORMANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS A WHOLE WAS SATISFACTORY. |