IPO-bound Pine Labs to appoint Avendus' Sameer Kamath as new CFO
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
Initial public offering (IPO)-bound merchant payments company Pine Labs is set to appoint Sameer Kamath as its new chief financial officer, according to two people in the know.Kamath is currently the group chief financial officer (CFO) at the Mumbai-based investment bank Avendus Capital . He is set to join the digital payments company soon, ET has learnt.Kamath has spent over two decades in the financial services industry. Prior to Avendus, Kamath was the group CFO at Mumbai-based broking firm Motilal Oswal.Emailed queries to Pine Labs went unanswered.Kamath's appointment comes after the exit of Marc Mathenz, its Singapore-based CFO, who resigned in June, just before the company filed its draft prospectus with the stock market regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).'Pine Labs needed an Indian CFO since the company reverse-flipped its parent entity from Singapore to India,' said one of the persons in the know.Kamath's appointment comes with Shalini Saxena set to return to the Gurugram-based firm as its general counsel. Bar and Bench was the first to report this development.Saxena was the general counsel, or the top legal official, at Pine Labs between 2019 and 2022, after which she had moved to crypto exchange startup CoinDCX as its legal head. Now she is set to join Pine Labs again.Currently, Kush Mehra, chief business officer; Sumit Chopra, chief operating officer; and Navin Chandani, chief business officer of the issuing business, are a few of the key personnel at Pine Labs, which counts erstwhile PayU top executive Amrish Rau as its current chief executive officer.The company filed its DRHP on June 27, seeking to raise Rs 2,600 crore through a fresh issue of shares and an offer-for-sale (OFS) of up to 147.8 million shares. The company is looking for a valuation of $4.5 to $5 billion through the public issue. It counts the likes of Peak XV Partners, Mastercard, PayPal, and Actis among its major shareholders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
16 minutes ago
- India Today
Non-compete clauses blocking job switch are not enforceable, says Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling that could have widespread implications, the Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that non-compete clauses restricting an employee's right to work after leaving a company are unenforceable under Indian law. The judgment came in the appeal of Varun Tyagi, a software engineer, against his former employer, Daffodil Software Private Limited, which had sought to block him from joining a key client after resigning from the was the case?Varun Tyagi, an IT engineer, joined Daffodil Software in January 2022 and was later assigned to a government project run by Digital India Corporation, a business associate of Daffodil. Tyagi rose to a leadership position on the project, receiving specialised training and working closely with resigning from Daffodil in January 2025 and serving a three-month notice period, Tyagi accepted a job offer from DIC, which was to be effective from April 2025. Soon after, Daffodil, citing a non-compete and non-solicitation clause in Tyagi's employment contract with them, filed a suit before the court to restrain him from joining DIC. The company argued that this move could potentially harm their business interests and lead to the disclosure of proprietary employment agreement between Tyagi and Daffodil included a sweeping clause that prohibited Tyagi from soliciting or working with any business associates of Daffodil for three years after leaving the company and associating with any business associate he had interacted with during his trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of Daffodil, restraining Tyagi from joining DIC and from disclosing any confidential information. The court said there was a prima facie case in favour of the company and there existed a real risk of irreparable harm to Daffodil. Tyagi then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the injunction and the non-compete clause violated his right to work and were void under Indian through his counsel, argued that non-compete clauses were a blanket prohibition, not just on competitors but also on clients and business associates. He further said that such a clause, which imposes a post-employment restraint, cannot be legally permitted under Indian law. Daffodil, on the other hand, argued that the non-compete was necessary to protect the company's interests, investments and intellectual property. They further argued that Tyagi had access to confidential information and proprietary knowledge that could potentially harm Daffodil's business did the High Court say?Justice Tejas Karia, who heard Tyagi's appeal, examined whether there was any legal foundation of non-compete clauses in India. The Court said that Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that any agreement that restrains anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, except in the case of the sale of goodwill, shall be court clarified that Indian law, unlike English law, does not recognise the validity of 'partial' or 'reasonable' restraints. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the court held that any post-employment restriction, no matter how limited, should be considered void unless it falls under the narrow exception for the sale of the High Court also found that Daffodil did not own the intellectual property or confidential information in question; rather, it belonged to DIC, the client. Most importantly, the court held that the non-compete clause, as drafted, was an impermissible restraint on Tyagi's right to work and was thus void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract have the courts said earlier?Indian courts have consistently held that non-compete clauses restricting an employee after they leave employment are void and unenforceable. Such clauses are seen as a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, as they may deprive individuals of their fundamental right to earn a livelihood. This is, however, for enforcement of non-compete clauses post-employment only. Restrictions that apply during the period of employment are generally valid. Employers can prohibit employees from working with competitors or starting a competing business while still employed, provided the restrictions are reasonable and protect legitimate business there are certain exceptions that have evolved over time through judicial interpretations, in which a non-compete clause may be upheld. For example, courts may uphold non-compete clauses if they are specifically designed to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential data, provided the restrictions are reasonable in scope and duration. Additionally, as stated in Section 27, non-compete agreements that are part of a sale of business or goodwill may be enforceable to protect the buyer's the case of Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Murgai (1981), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that any agreement restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business would generally be void, except with the limited exception to the sale of goodwill. 'The right to livelihood and to pursue any occupation is paramount and cannot be curtailed by such contractual restrictions' the top court the case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) the Supreme Court held that negative covenants or restrictions during the period of employment are valid if they are reasonable and necessary to protect the employer's interests, such as trade secrets or confidential information. However, restraints that operate after the termination of employment are generally void under Section 27. The court struck a balance, stating that while protecting trade secrets is legitimate, post-employment restrictions on an employee's right to work are not recently, in the case of Manipal Business Solutions v. Aurigain Consultants (2022), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on associating with a business associate or client post-employment are void under Section 27. The Court also held that such clauses, even if agreed upon, cannot be enforced after the employment relationship ends, as they amount to a restraint of trade and violate the right to livelihood.- Ends
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ideabaaz signs up Yaap Digital as integrated marketing partner
Ideabaaz , India's platform celebrating grassroots entrepreneurship , has appointed Yaap Digital as its integrated marketing partner . The collaboration aims to amplify Ideabaaz across digital and offline mediums, establishing it as a cultural and entrepreneurial movement that resonates across every corner of the country. Co-founded by media entrepreneur Jeet Wagh , Ideabaaz is a stage for dreamers, doers and disruptors from Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities - inviting them to pitch their ideas in any Indian language, free from the filters and gatekeeping often associated with mainstream startup showcases. With a mission to democratise opportunity, the platform features real founders, real investors and real impact. As integrated marketing partner, Yaap will drive the brand's strategy, storytelling and go-to-market execution across digital platforms, on-ground activations and strategic partnerships, ensuring Ideabaaz captures national attention and cultural relevance from the outset. Atul Hegde, founder of Yaap, shared his thoughts on the collaboration, 'We're always excited to collaborate with new-age founders - and with Ideabaaz, we have a clean slate to bring an IP alive from inception. It's rare to find a property so culturally rooted and yet so forward-looking. I'm genuinely looking forward to creating something memorable with Jeet and his team, something that not only scales but leaves a lasting imprint on India's startup narrative.' Jeet Wagh, founder partner of Ideabaaz, added, 'Ideabaaz is built on the belief that ambition doesn't need a pin code or a pedigree. It just needs a platform. With YAAP's strategic and creative firepower, we're confident this show will not just reach audiences - it will inspire them. This partnership is about building something iconic, together.'
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
TAFE & AGCO Settle Legal Dispute over Massey Ferguson Brand in India
HighlightsChennai-based Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited has become the sole and exclusive owner of the Massey Ferguson brand in India, Nepal, and Bhutan following a settlement with AGCO Corporation. TAFE will repurchase AGCO's 20.7% stake in the company for $260 million, making it a wholly owned subsidiary of the Amalgamations Group. All existing commercial agreements between TAFE and AGCO will be terminated, but TAFE will continue to honor outstanding supply orders and provide parts for agreed markets. Chennai-based Tractors and Farm Equipment ( TAFE ) and US agricultural machinery manufacturer AGCO Corporation , which were locked in a legal dispute over the use of the latter's tractor brand Massey Ferguson in India, have reached a settlement. The deal brings the curtains down on the year-long legal dispute. Under the terms of the settlement, TAFE will become the sole and exclusive owner of the Massey Ferguson brand in India, Nepal and Bhutan, including all associated rights, trademarks and goodwill, according to a joint statement released on Tuesday. TAFE will repurchase AGCO's 20.7% stake in the company for $260 million, making it a wholly owned subsidiary of the Amalgamations Group, a Chennai-based diversified industrial conglomerate. AGCO, in turn, will exit its equity holding in TAFE. TAFE will retain a 16.3% ownership stake in AGCO and has committed not to exceed this limit. It will also participate in AGCO's future share buybacks to maintain its proportional holding, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, TAFE will support AGCO's board recommendations at shareholder meetings, with limited exemptions. All existing commercial agreements between the two will be terminated. However, TAFE will continue to honour outstanding supply orders and provide parts for agreed markets. All legal proceedings will be unconditionally withdrawn. A consent decree will be sought to formally close the cases. The agreement will take effect upon completion of necessary regulatory and procedural formalities. According to legal sources, Sudarshan Venu of TVS Motor, and Haigreve Khaitan, senior partner at Khaitan & Co, played a key role in the outcome. The relationship between TAFE and AGCO spans over six decades. During this time, Massey Ferguson has become a well-recognised name in Indian agriculture. TAFE, the second-largest tractor manufacturer in India after Mahindra & Mahindra, sells more than 180,000 tractors annually, including over 100,000 Massey Ferguson tractors produced in India. 'We are pleased to have reached an amicable resolution with TAFE on all outstanding commercial, governance, and shareholding matters,' said Eric Hansotia, chairman and CEO, AGCO.
