Sterlite Technologies MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 19 Aug 2026, 4 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.

• a) To receive, consider and adopt the Audited Standalone Financial Statements of the Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2026 and the reports of the Board of Directors and the Auditors thereon. b) To receive, consider and adopt the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2026 and the Report of the Auditors thereon.MoreLess

  4 for0 against
• To appoint a director in place of Mr. Venkatesh Murthy (DIN 08567907), who retires by rotation and being eligible, offers himself for re-appointment.

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: Low attendance at the Board meetings for FY 2025-26 and in aggregate over past 3 FYs. Further, the Company has not provided any compelling reason for his absence at the Board meetings.
  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundVenkatesh Murthy, 54, has been associated with the company since 2006 and is currently Chief Operations Officer for Optical Networking Business of the Company. He has been on the board of this company since 27 July 2023. He attended one out of six board meetings held in FY26 (16.7%) and three out of fifteen (20.0%) board meetings held over a three-year period. While we note that his absence from board meetings was due to the nature of his role as Chief Operating Officer for Optical Network Business which requires him to travel to oversee operations of the company in India and abroad, as per our voting guidelines, we expect directors to attend all board meetings and at a minimum, 75% board meetings over a three-year period prior to their reappointment. We are unable to support the resolution.

  2 for2 against
• To approve re-appointment of Mr. Ankit Agarwal as Managing director of the Company.

  ›Against Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund

  • Jio BlackRock Mutual FundAnkit Agarwal, 42, is part of the promoter family and currently the Managing Director. He has served on the board since 20 January 2021. During FY26, he attended all six board meetings. We estimate Ankit Agarwal’s proposed remuneration at Rs. 54.5 mn, which would be the highest remuneration paid to him in the past five years. However, we note that, under the proposed remuneration structure, his maximum remuneration, including incentive payouts, can increase to Rs. 332.0 mn, which is high relative to the size and scale of the business. The company has clarified that his fixed salary is capped at Rs. 100.0 mn and that he has not received any incentive payout in the past two years. However, there is insufficient clarity regarding the quantum of future incentive payouts and the performance thresholds that will determine such payments. So, while the past pay has been reasonable, we raise concern on the wide cap assigned on his overall remuneration. Further, his proposed remuneration terms include reimbursement of expenses incurred for travelling, boarding and lodging including for spouse and attendants during business trips: We support the expenses incurred by Ankit Agarwal for business trips, however, expense for spouse and attendants are personal in nature and must be borne by the director. Therefore, while we support his reappointment, given the concerns on his remuneration structure, we do not support the resolution.

  3 for1 against
• To approve payment of remuneration to Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Managing Director.

  4 for0 against
• To approve payment of commission to Independent Non-executive Directors.

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundDisclosures as required under Schedule V to the Companies Act, 2013 not made in the explanatory statement.

  3 for1 against
• To ratify the remuneration of Cost Auditor.

  2 for0 against

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 16 Jun 2026, 11 fund houses

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

• Approval for raising of the funds through Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP)/ External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs) with rights of conversion into shares/ Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs)/ American Depository Receipts (ADRs)/ Global Depository Receipts (GDRs)/ Optionally or Compulsorily Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares (OCPs/ CCPs) etc. pursuant to Section 62 of Companies Act, 2013MoreLess

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, Groww Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance concern: Excessive Dilution; since the Company has sought all enabling approval for fund raising, there is no explicit disclosure on whether the rights issue will be undertaken or not; rights issue as a mode of fundraising will not cause dilution to the existing shareholders. Hence, if a rights issue is not opted as mode of fund-raising, the Company should clearly explain the rationale for the same. No disclosure regarding the urgency of funds.
  • Groww Mutual FundCompliant with Law. Governance concern: Excessive Dilution; since the Company has sought all enabling approval for fund raising, there is no explicit disclosure on whether the rights issue will be undertaken or not; rights issue as a mode of fundraising will not cause dilution to the existing shareholders. Hence, if a rights issue is not opted as mode of fund-raising, the Company should clearly explain the rationale for the same. No disclosure regarding the urgency of funds.

  8 for2 against

• Tax disputeThe Customs authority of IndiaSince 31 Dec 2002
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: The case is linked with the main EOU matter.The department's contention is that there is a 'procedural' lapse as use of RM has to be for 'intended purpose' and 'his factory'. The CESTAT has directed that the appeal be disposed of at present, with liberty granted to STL to take appropriate steps to revive the appeals and get the same heard once the main EOU matter is concluded by the Supreme Court. STL has lodged Writ Petition No. 523 of 2017, challenging the aforesaid Order of the CESTAT before the Bombay High Court. Writ petition filed before Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has been withdrawn in terms of the Tribunal order dated 2 Sept 2016; STL had submitted a letter to the Tribunal for relisting of the appeal.During the recent hearing in respect of EOU main matter, the submissions made have been acknowledged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for legal validation, the matter has been referred to the Tribunal for further proceedings.MoreLess
• Tax disputeService TaxSince 14 Oct 2021
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: The Authorities have issued four separate Show Cause Notices to four different Service tax registrations of the Company (i.e. Waluj, Shendra, Odisha and closed unit of Waluj) demanding Service tax liability on difference between value of services appearing in 26AS vis-Ã -vis respective Service tax registrations. • STL has submitted detailed reply against these Show cause notices. Hearing is awaited from the Commissioner. The personal hearing was completed. Post completion of hearing, Order In Original is passed on 31.10.2023 and received on 6.11.2023 by dropping 2 SCNs raised on same PAN and partially dropping the 3rd SCN of INR 5.62 Cr. Now the order stands for 50.72Cr plus interest and penalty Order in Original for Droping of Service Tax Demand against order passed by Odisa Service tax authority has been passed, Now only one SCN has been open, against Such SCN Company has filed writ petition with bombay HC.MoreLess
• Tax disputeIncome Tax DepartmentSince 4 Aug 2017
  Favourable order from Commissioner (Appeals) of Income Tax for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, 2018-19 and AY 2020-21. For AY 2018-19 Department has filed appeal to ITAT Mumbai
  At the filing before: As per the company policy, STL has claimed ESOP expenditures as debited to P & L Account.The said expense represents the option discount i.e. excess of market price of the share at the grant date of the option. STL has submitted that the amount written off is as required by the SEBI guidelines and hence, entire expenditure need to be allowed as deduction. The AO disallowed the same stating that the Assessee company has failed to bring on record the actual number of options exercised by the employees. In view of the fact, said expenditure has not been crystallized in the previous year, and the said expenditure is contingent, notional and more over capital in nature, and hence, the claim of the Assessee is rejected. The company has filed appeals before CIT (A) and Mumbai High Court. AY 2001-02, AY 2008-09 & AY 2009-10 Pending before Bombay HC. AY 2016-17 and AY 2021-22 Pending before ITAT. Balance cases are Pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Date of intiation of the litigation is different for every assessment year, the same are mentioned below: AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 04-08-2017 AY 2001-02 - 16-11-2007 AY 2014-15 - 19-02-2018 AY 2015-16- 23-01-2018 AY 2016-17 - 15-01-2019 (CIT(A)) and 08-02-2024 for ITAT AY 2017-18 - 14-01-2020 AY 2018-19 - 25-03-2021 AY 2020-21 - 28-10-2022 AY 2021-22 - 26-12-2024 (ITAT). AY 2001-02, AY 2008-09 & AY 2009-10 Pending before Bombay HC. AY 2016-17 and AY 2021-22 Pending before ITAT. Balance cases are Pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 1. Appeal filed for AY 2009-10 has been disposed off by the high court 2. Appeal filed for AY 2016-17 We have received Favourable order from ITAT 3. For other years no change in the statusMoreLess
• Tax disputeThe Customs authority of IndiaSince 8 Jan 2025
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: The redemption fine under the Customs Act, has been imposed by the Tribunal towards violation of condition of Notification No. 53/97-Cus as the said capital goods have been used by DTA unit. STL has filed Special Leave Petition against High Court order and Civil Appeal against CESTAT order. The Supreme Court has noted that the Departmental Appeal against CESTAT order is still pending before the High Court. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the Special Leave Petition of STL, directed that the records of the Departmental Appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court. During the hearing the Bench framed specific questions for determination on the basis of the submissions made. In the meanwhile, STL had filed an appeal withdrawal application to the extent of Excise matters by opting Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution scheme. And for applicability of the said scheme to STL case, the said application was taken up for hearing on 9 Sept 2020 and partial withdrawal was allowed. Hence, the appeal before Supreme Court is limited to the redemption fine imposed under the Customs Act. The Supreme Court has remanded the matter to Bombay High Court . The Appeal is pending with Hon'ble Bombay High Court and waiting for hearing.MoreLess
• Tax disputeDirectorate General of Intelligence ("DGGI")Since 2 Jul 2024
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: Basis the investigation carried out by Directorate General of Intelligence ("DGGI"), show cause notice was issued to the Company demanding GST on account of non-inclusion of management salary cost while raising invoices on distinct persons qua support services provided by the corporate office. At the investigation stage, there were mixed views regarding applicability of GST on employee cost based on the Appellate Advance Rulings passed in the matter of Columbia Asia Hospitals Private Limited as well as Cummins India Limited. Thus, the demand raised by the Authorities of INR 21.51 Crs was already paid by the Company before issuance of Show Cause notice ("SCN"). However, pursuant to issuance of SCN, the underlying issue of inclusion of employee cost while raising invoices qua cross charge has been clarified by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ("CBIC") vide Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023 ("Circular"). The said Circular has clearly clarified that employee cost of the Head office is not mandatorily required to be included while computing the taxable value for cross charge, even in cases where full input tax credit is not available to the concerned branch offices. It is settled position that circulars issued by the CBIC, are binding the Authorities. Accordingly, in terms of the said Circular, the Company has good case on merits. In any event, it is settled position in law that in case of interpretational issue, penalty cannot be levied. Given the above, the Company has good case on merits. The Company will either file an appeal against the Order confirming demand or will file a writ petition before the High Court.MoreLess
• Tax disputeAssistant State tax officer, State Tax, GoaSince 25 Feb 2025
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: The officer has passed an order confirming the demand of INR 5.50 Cr on the basis of the difference in taxable value appearing in GSTR-7 (i.e. GST TDS certificate) and GSTR-3B and non-reversal of excess TDS credit claimed by Rs 0.29 Cr along with interest and penalty. The Company is in the process of filing an appeal/writ petition against the said order.MoreLess
• Tax disputeIncome Tax DepartmentSince 25 Feb 2026
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: Demand Order having DIN ITBA/AST/S/156/2025-26/1084278320(1), issued under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated December 31, 2025 of INR 36.83 Crores. This is rergarding adjustments related to intra-group services like Marketing/HR/administrative/ software development services from various overseas related parties, Interest on Loans and Advances, Corporate Guarantee and Recovery of SBLC Fees, and Interest on Outstanding Receivables.MoreLess
• Tax disputeDeputy Commissioner of the state GST Department, MP (MP GST Department)Since 23 Mar 2026
  No change in the status as compare to Last
  At the filing before: Demand of GST on excess availment of ITC under wrong head and interest on reversal of ITC. INR 07.69 Cr on the basis of the Excess Claim and Wrong Reclaim of ITC in GSTR-3B Interest on Reversals along with interest and penalty INR 4,10,83,372/-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.