Go Digit General Insurance CEO, MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 18 Aug 2026, 11 fund houses so far (houses' deadline to file 15 Oct 2026)

• To consider and adopt the audited financial statements of the Company for the financial year ended as at March 31, 2026 together with the reports of the Board of Directors’ and Auditors’ thereon.

  11 for0 against
• To appoint a director in place of Gopalakrishnan Soundarajan (DIN: 05242795), who retires by rotation and being eligible, offers himself for reappointment.

  11 for0 against

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 29 Nov 2025, 21 fund houses

• To approve the amendment in the “Go Digit- Employee Stock Option Plan 2018

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, HDFC Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund, Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Nippon India Mutual Fund, Zerodha Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Issues identified in the ESOP Schemes itself: Non-disclosure of Exercise Price. Excessive benefit may be extended to an individual employee.Benefit extended to Holding Company without any justification and no provision for reimbursement of cost to be incurred by the Company.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Zerodha Mutual FundCompliant with law. Although, no concern has been identified w.r.t. proposed amendment per-se. Governance Concern: Issues identified in the ESOP Schemes itself: Non-disclosure of Exercise Price. Excessive benefit may be extended to an individual employee. Benefit extended to Holding Company without any justification and no provision for reimbursement of cost to be incurred by the Company.
  • HDFC Mutual FundThere is a lack of clarity on the exercise price of the ESOPs. We do not support the resolution.
  • Invesco Mutual FundThe company proposes to increase the exercise period from existing four years from date of vesting of options to eight years from the date of vesting of such option. We note that the vesting of options is either time based, or performance based (performance metrics have not been disclosed) as decided by the Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC). The exercise price per option shall be the face value or any other price which shall not be lesser than the face value as on grant date. We do not favour schemes where there is no clarity on exercise price or the exercise price is at a significant discount (>20%) to market price. ESOPs are ‘pay at risk’ options that employees accept at the time of grant, which is protected if the ESOPs are issued at significant discount to market price. If the stock options are granted at a significant discount, there is no alignment between the interests of investors and those of employees. We believe as a good practice companies should grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics. Since we do not support the scheme, we do not support the proposed amendment
  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundThe company proposes to increase the exercise period from existing four years from date of vesting of options to eight years from the date of vesting of such option. We note that the vesting of options is either time based, or performance based (performance metrics have not been disclosed) as decided by the Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC). The exercise price per option shall be the face value or any other price which shall not be lesser than the face value as on grant date. We do not favour schemes where there is no clarity on exercise price or the exercise price is at a significant discount (>20%) to market price. ESOPs are ‘pay at risk’ options that employees accept at the time of grant, which is protected if the ESOPs are issued at significant discount to market price. If the stock options are granted at a significant discount, there is no alignment between the interests of investors and those of employees. We believe as a good practice companies should grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics. Since we do not support the scheme, we do not support the proposed amendment.
  • Kotak Mahindra Mutual FundThe company proposes to increase the exercise period from existing four years from date of vesting of options to eight years from the date of vesting of such option. We note that the vesting of options is either time based, or performance based (performance metrics have not been disclosed) as decided by the Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC). The exercise price per option shall be the face value or any other price which shall not be lesser than the face value as on grant date. The Company has capped individual grants at 1% of issued capital (92,33,481 options) but without disclosing the exercise price, the potential benefit cannot be precisely estimated. Based on the current market price, the maximum possible gain per employee is around 316.89 crore; which is excessive relative to the Company s size. Hence, we do not support the resolution.
  • Nippon India Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Non-disclosure of exercise price violates SEBI, risks excessive individual benefits without caps; unjustified extension to Holding Company lacks reimbursement/cost recovery provisions.

  9 for12 against
• Appointment of Giridhar Aramane (DIN: 00483130) as a Non-Executive Independent Director of the Company for a period of five years w.e.f. November 1, 2025

  21 for0 against
• Appointment of Michael Wallace (DIN: 10214400) as a Non- Executive Director of the Company w.e.f. November 1, 2025

  21 for0 against

• Fine or penaltyEmployee Provident Fund OrganizationSince 30 Apr 2026₹432

  Late Fees on Delay in Provident Fund Payment

  Delay in Provident Fund Payment
• Tax disputeOffice of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South CommissionerateSince 2 Jan 2020
  The Company has filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 3rd June 2026 against the order.
  At the filing before: The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Hon’ble Court”) has set aside the order passed by Office of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate regarding the said demand ( Adjudicating Authority). The Hon’ble Court has noted that the GST Council had considered the issue and has also issued Circulars in this regard. The Hon’ble Court had therefore directed the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the matters afresh in light of the decision of the GST Council and the Circulars and to complete the adjudication within a period of three months. The Adjudicating Authority reaffirmed the original GST Demand and same was reported to exchanges on 7th March 2026.MoreLess
• Tax disputeOffice of the Commissioner, CGST Audit-I, New DelhiSince 22 Sep 2025
  The Company has filed appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 29th June 2026
  At the filing before: Reply was submitted to Show Cause Notice. A final demand order dated 30th March 2026 was received, raising a demand of Rs.38,49,698/- along with interest of Rs.19,864/- and a penalty of Rs.55,04,664/- The Company is in the process of filing an appeal before the appropriate higher authority in respect of the said matter.MoreLess
• Tax disputeOffice of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 6(2), MumbaiSince 19 Jun 2024
  The Company has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 4th April 2026, a rectification application for correction of the interest computation on 10th April 2026, and a stay application against the demand on 23rd April 2026, which has been granted subjected to review upon expiry of 6 months or upon disposal of appeal by CIT(A), whichever is earlier. The Company has also responded to the notice dated 25th March 2026 received under Section 270A requesting that penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal. Further, a hearing notice dated 19 May 2026 has been received under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from CIT(A) to which adjournment has been sought and the appeal proceedings are currently pending.MoreLess
  At the filing before: The Company has received an order pursuant to the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act"), 1961 on 25th March 2026 raising an Income-tax demand of Rs. 3,84,43,19,480/- (including interest of Rs. 1,00,38,89,700/- u/s 234B of the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24(“Order”) and same was reported to stock exchanges on 26th March 2026 .MoreLess
• Tax disputeAdditional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit (BZU)Since 27 Dec 2023
  The Company has received a show cause notice on 25th May 2026, alleging ineligible availment of input tax credit (“ITC”) amounting to Rs. 20,51,00,281/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Fifty-One Lakh Two Hundred Eighty-One only) during the period September 2022 to March 2024. The same was intimated to the Stock Exchanges on 26th May 2026. The Company is in the process of filing the reply against the above show cause notice.MoreLess
  At the filing before: An enquiry was initiated by the Office of DGGI, BZU with respect to ITC availed towards parties in default. Further a search was initiated from 2nd July 2024 to 3rd July 2024. The same was intimated to the Stock Exchange on 4th July 2024.MoreLess

In the company's own words, from its latest governance filing.

The board is made up as the listing rules require

Yes

The board has a regular chairperson

Yes

The company has a risk management committee

Yes

The chair is related to the managing director

No

The filing has a part on fines and penalties

Yes

The filing has a part on tax disputes

Yes

There was a cyber security incident in the quarter

No

The company's own answers in its filing.