The Bombay High Court's verdict on Yes Bank's two largest shareholders Rana Kapoor and Madhu Kapur, last week may not close the two-year long dispute yet.

Even as Rana Kapoor, bank's CEO and MD, intends to amend the articles of association of the bank, Madhu Kapur's daughter Shagun Gogia says the court has emphatically refused to declassify her family's status as a promoter.

Excerpts from an interview:

How do you view the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court?

We are happy to be vindicated. As successors we have been recognised as having equal rights; also the seven Directors have been unseated. On an important issue as to whether we can be declassified from our status of promoter, the Court emphatically ruled in the negative and passed orders preventing Rana Kapoor and Yes Bank from even making such applications to the RBI.

My appointment as a board member was never a prayer in our suit. It only came about when Justice Kathawala in 2013 ordered me to send my application to the Yes Bank board and from there it became a part of this litigation. Predictably the Board denied it, the Bombay High Court in its recent Order observes "One may question the way in which the Board went about considering Shagun's so-called nomination. It may even be described as churlish or even vindictive."

What does the joint nomination verdict mean to you as a promoter and second largest shareholder?

We have been recognised as having equal rights as my father did as per the Articles of Association. We look forward to exercising those rights and participating within the framework of those rights to ensure the growth and well-being of the Bank.

Rana Kapoor intends to amend articles of association of the bank. What do you think of it?

We fought the battle on the ground that we were denied our rights as per the Articles of Association. Rana Kapoor argued that these rights were personal to him and only he had the right to nominate. He has even been unilaterally exercising the same rights as per the articles. If he wants to change the articles to deny us our rights, there wouldn’t be anything new or alarming he is doing. He has done it over the last 7 years, he’ll be doing it again.

However Rana Uncle’s interpretation that the High Court has directed him to amend the articles appears to be a deliberate misreading of the Order. The Judgment states that as the Articles stand, both the Promoters and the successors of the Promoters have joint rights. If you want to change them or regulate them, then you may amend the articles or reduce your joint shareholding below 10%. These are options, not directions.

Do you fear this will take away your rights?

We will cross the bridge when we come to it.

Is there a possibility of both the involved parties working together after the final verdict?

We hope so. Both promoters have the best interest of the Bank in mind. We kept our faith in the relations for several years but our trust was broken time and again. We had to move that faith to the judiciary. We are happy to work constructively as long as there is transparency, governance and trust from their side.

What is the lesson learnt in these two years?

The hard lesson learnt by me over the past years is that close family members can take advantage of tragic situations. Having said that, my belief in the judiciary of our country has been reinforced. Trials may be excruciatingly slow but when the end comes, it comes with devastating speed.

comment COMMENT NOW