
MUMBAI: The decades-old feud in the Kirloskar family is set to take longer as Kirloskar Oil Engines (KOEL) has challenged the Sebi order asking it to disclose the details of the family settlement at the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), which will begin hearing the case from January 16.
On December 30, 2024, KOEL was directed to disclose the details of the 2009 family settlement deed. And the company had moved the SAT on January 4 on the appellate tribunal.
The dispute, rooted in allegations of selective compliance and corporate governance lapses, has intensified in recent times with regulatory interventions and legal battles, which so far has not reached any logical conclusion.
After the Baba Kalyani and his sister Sugandha Hiremath fight for the share of the over R 1 trillion Kalyani family assets along with control for Hikal, the Kirloskars are the second prominent business family from Pune openly fighting family issues.
A source at Kirloskar Oil Engines told TNIE that the family settlement, signed on September 11, 2009, was intended to establish clear boundaries of ownership, management, and control among the family’s business arms.
It had allocated specific businesses to different family members, including Atul, Rahul, and the late Gautam Kulkarni of KOEL, as well as Sanjay Kirloskar of Kirloskar Brothers.
Following the agreement, KOEL exited its joint venture with Toyota selling the stake for R250 crore to Vikram Kirloskar and his nominees, aligning with the terms of the settlement, the source added.
However, Kirloskar Brothers has alleged that KOEL violated the settlement by acquiring La Gajjar Machineries in 2017, a move that directly competes with Kirloskar Brothers’ pump business, prompting it to move the Supreme Court, where the case is still being heard.
In December 2024, Sebi had directed KOEL to disclose the details of the family settlement, citing its material implications for shareholders and compliance requirements under its listing obligations and disclosure requirements regulations.
The Sebi stance was bolstered by an affidavit the regulator had filed in a related Supreme Court case, where it had emphasised that non-disclosure of such agreements created “information asymmetry” and undermined the regulatory certainty. However, KOEL decided to challenge the Sebi directive saying the Sebi directive was an “ignorant interpretation” of contract and corporate laws.