MUMBAI: The Kirloskar family members feud took a surprise twist when Kirloskar Industries Ltd (KIL), a promoter of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd (KBL), voted in opposition to the re-appointment of an impartial director to KBL’s board for the duration of its AGM on Friday citing mistrust of the director’s independence and impartiality.
The resolution to re-appoint Kishor Chaukar on the board of Kirloskar Brothers was blocked with only 65.7% votes in his favour. Re-appointment of an impartial director is a particular resolution and demands 75% of shareholder votes to move.
KIL, which holds a 23.9% stake in KBL, also voted in opposition to the resolutions to re-appoint Alok Kirloskar as a non-impartial director and to appoint MS Unnikrishnan as an impartial director, but these, passed as everyday resolutions, need to have only 50% votes in favour.
“The complete Kirloskar family members other than Sanjay (and his rapid family members) has voted in opposition to the appointment of Mr. Chaukar. The correspondence engaged by Mr. Chaukar with a single of the promoters (of KIL) developed suspicion about his independence on the board of KBL,” examine a statement from KIL.
An e mail despatched to Sanjay Kirloskar for remark remained unanswered until push time Monday.
This is the latest growth in the ongoing feud amongst the fourth technology of the industrialist family members with Sanjay Kirloskar on a single side and his brothers Atul and Rahul and the rest of the family members on the other.
Sanjay, the second son of Chandrakant Kirloskar, is the CMD of KBL. Elder brother Atul Kirloskar is the chairman of KIL.
Chaukar’s five-12 months expression as an impartial director of KBL finished on 26 April this 12 months. The business passed a resolution on 22 April to appoint him as an further director in the group of impartial director with result from 27 April until the summary of the ensuing AGM.
KIL had despatched a letter to KBL and the registrar of businesses on 12 Might in which it mentioned that calling it an “appointment” as an further director rather than a “re-appointment” was in opposition to the Providers Act, 2013. ET has seen a duplicate of this letter.
Chaukar responded expressing KBL would follow due method and move a particular resolution for his re-appointment as an impartial director for the duration of the subsequent AGM. He also referred to the personal deed of family members settlement (DFS) amongst the brothers in his reply.
The mention of the DFS was the bone of competition for KIL, mentioned a man or woman conscious of the growth inquiring not to be named.