Bharat Gears denies Sameer Kanwar shareholding claim
Bharat Gears clarified that Mr. Sameer Kanwar holds nil shares as on March 31, 2026, and rejected his BEN-1 form claim as the matter is sub-judice in the Delhi High Court. The company confirmed no share transfers occurred from the promoter group to Mr. Kanwar and cited his previous disclosures of nil shareholding. It termed his recent claims based on a court order as incorrect, misleading, and malafide.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Bharat Gears Limited has clarified that Mr. Sameer Kanwar holds nil shares in the company as on March 31, 2026. The disclosure was made to BSE Limited and The National Stock Exchange of India Limited under Regulation 31(4) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, referencing a prior email disclosure by Mr. Kanwar dated April 02, 2026. The company emphasized that records confirm nil shareholding for Mr. Kanwar since the financial year ended March 31, 2021.
The company addressed a recent BEN-1 form received from Mr. Sameer Kanwar claiming beneficial interest in shares under Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2013. Mr. Surinder Paul Kanwar, Chairman and Managing Director, confirmed he has not created any beneficial interest in his shareholding in favour of Mr. Sameer Kanwar, either directly or indirectly. The company stated that this claim is being contested by Mr. Surinder Paul Kanwar in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and is sub-judice. Consequently, the company informed Mr. Sameer Kanwar that it cannot consider the BEN-1 form as the alleged matter of family settlement is currently under legal adjudication.
Bharat Gears Limited further noted that there has been no transfer of shares from the promoter group to Mr. Sameer Kanwar, nor has any share transfer application been lodged by him since his last disclosures of nil shareholding for the financial year 2021-22. The company released the shareholding pattern as on March 31, 2026, to substantiate this position.
The company also challenged the interpretation provided by Mr. Sameer Kanwar regarding an order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated March 12, 2024. Bharat Gears Limited stated that this interpretation is incorrect, misleading, and made with malafide intent, given that Mr. Kanwar is a contesting party in the suit. The company clarified that the court order's scope is limited to ensuring business interests are not jeopardised and explicitly recorded that the shares belong to the father, Mr. Surinder Paul Kanwar.
Based on Mr. Sameer Kanwar's own disclosures to the stock exchange and audit committee for FY 2022, and the confirmation from Mr. Surinder Paul Kanwar, the company reiterated that Mr. Sameer Kanwar holds no shares. It concluded that the claims made in the declaration dated April 02, 2026, are frivolous and misleading. This clarification has been shared with the Audit Committee and the stock exchanges for their records.
Shareholding Pattern as on March 31, 2026
| S.no | Name of Shareholder | No. of Shares | % of Shareholding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Late Dr. Raunaq Singh | 907 | 0.00 |
| 2. | Surinder Paul Kanwar | 56,80,989 | 37.00 |
| 3. | Sachit Kanwar | 1,000 | 0.01 |
| 4. | Raunaq International Limited (Formerly known as Raunaq EPC International Limited) | 2,59,206 | 1.69 |
| 5. | Ultra Consultants Private Limited | 21,63,193 | 14.09 |
| 6. | Vibrant Reality Infra Private Limited | 2,21,800 | 1.44 |
| 7. | Clip-Lok Simpak (India) Private Limited | 1,68,315 | 1.10 |
| Total | 84,95,410 | 55.32 | |
| Public Shareholding | 68,59,648 | 44.68 | |
| Grand Total | 1,53,55,058 | 100.00 |
Historical Stock Returns for Bharat Gears
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +1.33% | +6.07% | -4.59% | +12.23% | +34.59% | +57.42% |
What is the expected timeline for the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to reach a verdict on the ongoing legal dispute regarding the beneficial interest claims?
Could this prolonged internal conflict within the promoter group lead to potential governance challenges or distract management from operational growth?
How might institutional investors react to the public nature of this family dispute and the allegations of malafide intent?


































