Laurus Labs CEO, MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 2 Jul 2026, 14 fund houses so far (houses' deadline to file 15 Oct 2026)

Each resolution counts the houses whose vote was matched to it; the rest are listed last.

• Adoption of the: (a) audited Standalone Financial Statements of the Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2026, the reports of Board of Directors and Auditors thereon (b) audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2026, the reports of Board of Directors and Auditors thereonMoreLess

  14 for0 against
• Aproval and ratification of the 1st interim dividend on equity shares @ Re. 0.80 per equity share paid for the financial year 2025-26.

  10 for0 against
• Aproval and ratification of the 2nd interim dividend on equity shares @ Re. 1.20 per share for the financial year 2025-26.

  10 for0 against
• Re-appointment of Mr. Krishna Chaitanya Chava (DIN: 06831883), a Director, who retires by rotation and, being eligible, offers himself, for re-appointment

  ›Against Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund

  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundKrishna Chaitanya Chava, 35, is heading the Synthesis Business unit of the company. He has experience in strategy, skill workshops and marketing within the Indian pharma market. He has been on the board of the company since 25 April 2024 and has attended six of seven board meetings (86%) held in FY26. He retires by rotation. While his reappointment is in line with regulations, the company has five promoters on the board as executive directors, which is disproportionate for the size of business. This practice deters from attracting the right talent to the company. Given the high promoter representation on the board. We do not support the resolution.

  13 for1 against
• Re-appointment of Mrs. Soumya Chava (DIN: 06831892), a Director, who retires by rotation and, being eligible, offers herself, for re-appointment.

  ›Against Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund

  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundMs. Soumya Chava, 39, is headed the Commercial Function (Supply Chain Management and Business Development) of the company. She has been on the board of the company since 25 April 2024 and has attended all seven board meetings (100%) held in FY26. She retires by rotation. While her reappointment is in line with regulations, the company has five promoters on the board as executive directors, which is disproportionate for the size of business. This practice deters from attracting the right talent to the company. Given the high promoter representation on the board. We do not support the resolution.

  13 for1 against
• Approval of the appointment of Dr. Shekhar Chintamani Mande (DIN: 10083454) as an Independent Director of the Company

  14 for0 against
• Approval of the appointment of Mrs. Sutapa Banerjee (DIN:02844650) as an Independent Director of the Company

  14 for0 against
• Approval of payment of remuneration to the Non-Executive Director(s) including Independent Director(s) of the Company

  ›Against HSBC Mutual Fund, Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund

  • HSBC Mutual FundA vote AGAINST this resolution is warranted because: • The approval will be valid till perpetuity and shareholders will not get to review the payments in the future.
  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundAt the July 2016 EGM, shareholders approved the payment of remuneration/commission not exceeding, in aggregate, 1% per annum of the company's net profits. During the period from July 2016 to March 2026, each independent director received remuneration of Rs. 2.0 mn per annum, while one foreign independent director was paid USD 40,000 per annum.The proposed commission is reasonable and in line with market practices. The commission will be paid in addition to sitting fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred for attending Board and Committee meetings. Between FY22 and FY26 the commission to Non-Executive Directors (including Independent Directors) ranged from 0.1% to 0.4% of standalone profit before tax, therefore the company has been judicious in the past with regard to their commission payouts.However, the company has not defined a tenure for payment of commission, and the resolution is effectively valid for perpetuity. We believe shareholders must get a chance to periodically approve such payments. Hence, we do not support the resolution.

  12 for2 against
• Approval of the remuneration payable to cost auditors for the financial year 2026-27

  14 for0 against

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 26 Jun 2025, 30 fund houses

Each resolution counts the houses whose vote was matched to it; the rest are listed last.

• To consider and adopt the audited Standalone Financial Statements of the Company for the Financial Year ended March 31, 2025, the reports of Board of Directors and Auditors thereon

  29 for0 against
• To consider and adopt the audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company for the Financial Year ended March 31, 2025 and report of Auditors thereon.

  29 for0 against
• To approve and ratify the 1st interim dividend on equity shares @ Rs.0.40 per share already paid for the Financial Year 2024-25.

  22 for0 against
• To approve and ratify the 2nd interim dividend on equity shares @ Rs.0.80 per share already paid for the Financial Year 2024-25.

  22 for0 against
• To appoint a Director in place of Dr. Satyanarayana Chava (DIN: 00211921) who retires by rotation and, being eligible, offers himself, for re-appointment.

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: Excessive time commitments; Remuneration skewed in favour of the proposed appointee.
  • Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: Excessive time commitments; Remuneration skewed in favour of Mr. Satyanarayana Chava.
  • PPFAS Mutual FundExcessive time commitments; Skewed Remuneration

  23 for6 against
• To appoint a Director in place of Dr. C.V. Lakshmana Rao (DIN: 06885453) who retires by rotation and, being eligible, offers himself, for re-appointment.

  29 for0 against
• TO APPROVE THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO COST AUDITORS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 2025-26

  26 for0 against
• TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARIAL AUDITORS OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundNon-Disclosure of Basis of Recommendation/ Credentials of proposed Auditor.
  • Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundNon-Compliant with Reg. 36 of SEBI (LODR) 2015: Non-Disclosure of Basis of Recommendation/ Credentials of proposed Auditor.
  • PPFAS Mutual FundNon-Disclosure of Basis of Recommendation/ Credentials of proposed Auditor

  24 for6 against
• TO APPROVE RE-APPOINTMENT OF DR. SATYANARAYANA CHAVA (DIN: 00211921) AS AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CEO OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, HSBC Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Nippon India Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund, Unifi Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: Excessive time commitments; No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration; Remuneration skewed in favour of proposed appointee.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: Excessive time commitments; No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration; Remuneration skewed in favour of proposed appointee.
  • Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, HSBC Mutual FundA vote AGAINST this resolution is warranted given the following concerns in executive's remuneration: • There is no absolute monetary cap on the commission element. Further, there are no disclosures on the threshold and target performance that he needs to achieve to determine the commission element. • The FY2025 pay of the executive compared to the median remuneration is deemed high compared to companies of similar size and scale. • The proposed pay is deemed higher than the remuneration of executive directors at peer companies, and not commensurate with size and scale of company's operations.
  • Invesco Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual FundDr. Satyanarayana Chava was paid Rs. 230.6 mn as remuneration in FY25 (as clarified by the company). We estimate his FY26 remuneration at Rs. 263.5 mn (including profit linked commission). While his fixed pay will remain unchanged over the course of his tenure, the profit-linked commission component is not capped: therefore, as profitability increases, remuneration may be much higher over the course of his tenure. The company should cap his overall remuneration in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern his variable pay. The estimated remuneration is high for the size and complexity of business and not in line with peers. While we support his reappointment on the board, given the ambiguity around his overall remuneration over the course of his tenure, we do not support his proposed remuneration terms. We do not support the resolution.
  • Nippon India Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Excessive time commitments and Skewed remuneration
  • PPFAS Mutual FundExcessive time commitments; No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration; Skewed Remuneration
  • Unifi Mutual FundDr. Satyanarayana Chava was paid Rs. 131.5 mn as remuneration in FY25. We estimate his FY26 remuneration at Rs. 263.5 mn (including profit linked commission). While his fixed pay will remain unchanged over the course of his tenure, the profit-linked commission component, at 2% of consolidated pre-tax profits, is not capped: therefore, as profitability increases, remuneration may be much higher over the course of his tenure. The company should cap the overall remuneration in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern variable pay. The estimated remuneration is high for the size and complexity of business and not in line with peers. While we support his reappointment on the board, given the ambiguity around his overall remuneration over the course of his tenure, we do not support his proposed remuneration terms. We do not support the resolution.

  16 for13 against
• TO APPROVE RE-APPOINTMENT OF MR. V.V. RAVI KUMAR (DIN: 01424180) AS AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & CFO OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • PPFAS Mutual FundNo absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration

  23 for6 against
• TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF DR. LAKSHMANA RAO CV, (DIN: 06885453) WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Nippon India Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Nippon India Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Skewed Remuneration
  • PPFAS Mutual FundNo absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration

  22 for7 against
• TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF MR. KRISHNA CHAITANYA CHAVA, (DIN: 06831883) WHOLETIME DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Baroda BNP Paribas Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Nippon India Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund, Unifi Mutual Fund, UTI Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Baroda BNP Paribas Mutual FundAlthough legally compliant there is no absolute cap on variable pay.
  • Invesco Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual FundKrishna Chaitanya Chava received Rs. 19.0 mn as remuneration in FY25 (as clarified by the company). We estimate his remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 46.2 mn, which includes a new profit-linked commission component of 0.5% of consolidated PBT. While the estimated remuneration is commensurate with the size of business, the commission component is uncapped, unlike the previous structure where the bonus was capped at 25% of salary. This is a deterioration in practice. The company must cap the profit linked commission in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern his variable pay. Further, we do not support the revision in his remuneration terms, given the high promoter representation on the board (five members of the promoter group). We do not support the resolution.
  • Nippon India Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Skewed Remuneration
  • PPFAS Mutual FundNo absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration
  • Unifi Mutual FundKrishna Chaitanya Chava is Dr. Satyanarayana Chava’s son and part of the promoter group. He received Rs. 18.4 mn as remuneration in FY25. The terms of his remuneration structure are being revised to include commission, which is currently set at 0.5% of consolidated pre-tax profits. We estimate his remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 46.2 mn. While the estimated remuneration is commensurate with the size of business, the commission component is uncapped, unlike the previous structure where the bonus was capped at 25% of salary. This is a deterioration in practice. The company must cap the profit linked commission in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern variable pay. Further, we do not support the revision in his remuneration terms, and the high promoter representation on the board (five members of the promoter group). We do not support the resolution.
  • UTI Mutual FundKrishna Chaitanya Chava received Rs. 19.0 mn as remuneration in FY25 (as clarified by the company). We estimate his remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 46.2 mn, which includes a new profit-linked commission component of 0.5% of consolidated PBT. We do not support the resolution as the overall promoter and promoter family remuneration is on higher side.

  16 for13 against
• TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF MRS. SOUMYA CHAVA, (DIN: 06831892) WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Baroda BNP Paribas Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund, Nippon India Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual Fund, PPFAS Mutual Fund, Unifi Mutual Fund, UTI Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with law. Governance concern: No absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration.
  • Baroda BNP Paribas Mutual FundGiven the short association with the company and no absolute cap on variable pay.
  • Invesco Mutual Fund, NJ Mutual FundMs. Soumya Chava received Rs. 12.4 mn as remuneration in FY25 (as clarified by the company). We estimate her remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 39.7 mn, which includes a new profit-linked commission component of 0.5% of consolidated PBT. While the estimated remuneration is commensurate with the size of business, the commission component is uncapped, unlike the previous structure where the bonus was capped at 25% of salary. This is a deterioration in practice. The company must cap the profit linked commission in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern her variable pay. Further, we do not support the revision in her remuneration terms, given the high promoter representation on the board (five members of the promoter group). We do not support the resolution.
  • Nippon India Mutual FundGovernance Concern: Skewed Remuneration
  • PPFAS Mutual FundNo absolute cap on variable pay or total remuneration
  • Unifi Mutual FundMs. Soumya Chava is Dr. Satyanarayana Chava’s daughter and part of the promoter group. She received Rs. 11.2 mn as remuneration in FY25. The terms of her remuneration structure are being revised to include commission, which is currently set at 0.5% of consolidated pre-tax profits. We estimate her remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 39.7 mn. While the estimated remuneration is commensurate with the size of business, the commission component is uncapped, unlike the previous structure where the bonus was capped at 25% of salary. This is a deterioration in practice. The company must cap the profit linked commission in absolute terms and disclose the performance parameters that govern variable pay. Further, we do not support the revision in her remuneration terms, given the high promoter representation on the board (five members of the promoter group). We do not support the resolution.
  • UTI Mutual FundMs. Soumya Chava received Rs. 12.4 mn as remuneration in FY25 (as clarified by the company). We estimate her remuneration as per revised terms at Rs. 39.7 mn, which includes a new profit-linked commission component of 0.5% of consolidated PBT. We do not support the resolution as the overall promoter and promoter family remuneration is on higher side.

  16 for13 against

• Tax disputePr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, HyderabadSince 21 Aug 2025
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with the High Court of Telangana with ITA No. 201/Hyd/2024. Facts of the case: Disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) & Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17 - Amount involved is INR 5,82,33,400/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputePr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, HyderabadSince 21 Aug 2025
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with the High Court of Telangana with ITA No. 121/Hyd/2024. Facts of the case: Disallowance of Sec 32AD of the Income Tax Act - Investment Allowance (Unit setup in backward areas) for AY 2016-17 - Amount involved is INR 11,16,50,605/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputePr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, HyderabadSince 21 Aug 2025
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with the High Court of Telangana with ITA No. 202/Hyd/2024. Facts of the case: Disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) & Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18 - Amount involved is INR 9,63,04,490/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputePr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, HyderabadSince 21 Aug 2025
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with the High Court of Telangana with ITA No. 203/Hyd/2024. Facts of the case: Disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19 - Amount involved is INR 4,88,56,363/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputeCommissioner of Service Tax, HyderabadSince 1 Mar 2017
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with CESTAT, Hyderabad Case No. Service Tax/0030708/2017. Facts of the case: Export of services under Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services treating as domestic service under POP Rule 4 for FY 2012 to FY 2015 - Amount involved is INR 4,98,88,820/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputeCommissioner of Service Tax, HyderabadSince 12 Mar 2020
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with CESTAT, Hyderabad Case No. Service Tax/0030035/2021. Facts of the case: Export of services under Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services treating as domestic service under POP Rule 4 for FY 2015-16 - FY 2017-18_Q1 - Amount involved is INR 8,19,09,780/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputeCommissioner of Customs, HyderabadSince 31 Dec 2019
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with CESTAT, Hyderabad Case No. Customs/0030028/2021. Facts of the case: Demand of Customs duty on Duty Scrips under Focus Product Scheme Section 28AAA for FY 2011-12 - Amount involved is INR 5,99,42,915/-.MoreLess
• Tax disputeTSSTAT, HyderabadSince 31 Dec 2014
  The current status remains the same as in the previous quarter.
  At the filing before: Pending with Telangana ADC, Punjagutta, Hyderabad Apeal No. PV/284/2014-15. Facts of the case: Disallowance of input tax on Sales to SEZ which are taxable under CST ACt for FY 2013-14 - Amount involved is INR 42,50,876/-.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

No

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.