Home > Business > PTI > Report
RIL board snubs Anil yet again
May 02, 2005 19:36 IST
The role and responsibility of Anil Ambani as vice chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries appears to have become another source of acrimony between him and his elder brother Mukesh Ambani, the company's chairman and managing director.
In the last four successive board meetings of the flagship company after July last, Anil, engaged in a bitter battle with Mukesh over ownership of Reliance empire, pleaded for defining his "role, responsibilities, authority and accountability," but the board has chosen to remain mum on it.
The Reliance Ownership Issue
Anil's most recent effort to get his role defined was at last week's board meeting i.e. on April 27, but he still has had no response from the Board, well-placed sources said.
RIL officials were not available for comments, but sources said during the December 27 meeting, the board termed the issue as "indoor management" and that there was no need to inform stock exchanges.
The contentious issue, raised by Anil in five communications to the board emanates from a resolution of July 27, 2004 on "Health, Safety and Environment" committee and to confirm authorities hitherto delegated by the board to directors and executives.
As per available information, the resolution said Mukesh as CMD had powers to allocate, delegate or assign responsibility to MDs, directors and executives or revoke all or any duties, responsibilities or powers so allocated. It also stipulates that Anil's function would be under the overall authority of the CMD.
Anil's grouse is that the change in the powers was not disclosed to shareholders, stock exchanges or Securities and Exchange Board of India despite the fact that he was a permanent director and vice chairman and managing director appointed by RIL shareholders at the AGM.
Even before the April 27 meeting, Anil had conceded that he was in minority at the board and dubbed his position as "Reliance Eleven Versus Anil Ambani."
During the meeting, he had abstained from signing the financial accounts of the company owing to absence of disclosure of information.