Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited announced that the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by SML Limited. The order, dated October 15, 2026, relates to a patent infringement suit concerning the company's agrochemical product, ZeekaSulf™.

The court observed that the material placed on record did not prima facie establish territorial jurisdiction in Himachal Pradesh. Additionally, the court noted the absence of sufficient evidence establishing that Dharmaj had supplied the product to the concerned retailer in the state. Consequently, the application seeking interim relief was dismissed.

Nature of Proceedings

The legal proceedings originate from a suit filed by SML Limited against Mohan & Company and Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited. The case is registered as COMS No. 7 of 2023 and OMP No. 324 of 2023. The allegations pertain to patent infringement regarding the company's agrochemical product.

Impact on Operations

The company clarified that this order relates specifically to the application for interim relief and does not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of the alleged patent infringement. The main suit remains pending before the Hon'ble Court. Dharmaj stated it will continue to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and in consultation with its legal advisors.

The disclosure was made under Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The company received knowledge of the order on October 16, 2026.

Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited shareholders unanimously approved all six resolutions presented at its 12th Annual General Meeting (AGM), held virtually on September 24, 2026. The meeting, conducted via Video Conferencing/Other Audio Visual Means (VC/OAVM), saw a voting turnout of 73.73% of outstanding shares.

The resolutions covered routine business, including the adoption of audited standalone and consolidated financial statements for the financial year ended March 31, 2026, as well as special business items such as director appointments and remuneration ratifications. The meeting commenced at 11:30 am and concluded at 11:55 am.

Voting participation and turnout

The company reported that out of 25,903 shareholders on the record date (September 17, 2026), a significant portion participated through remote e-voting or during the meeting. The total number of shares voted across all categories was 24,920,405, representing 73.73% of the total outstanding shares of 33,797,296.

Resolutions passed

All six resolutions were passed with overwhelming support from promoters and institutional investors. Dissenting votes were minimal, primarily recorded among public non-institutional shareholders.

Ordinary business

1. Adoption of Financial Statements: Shareholders approved the audited standalone and consolidated financial statements for FY26, along with Board and Auditor reports. The resolution received 99.99% votes in favour.
2. Director Re-appointment: Mr. Rameshbhai R Talavia was re-appointed as a Director retiring by rotation. This resolution also secured 99.99% votes in favour.

Special business

3. Cost Auditor Remuneration: The remuneration payable to Cost Auditors for FY27 was ratified with 99.99% votes in favour.
4. Independent Director Appointment: Mrs. Megha Joshi was appointed as an Independent Director. The special resolution passed with 99.99% votes in favour.
5. Whole-Time Director Re-appointments: Both Mr. Jamankumar H. Talavia and Mr. Jagdish R. Savaliya were re-appointed as Whole-Time Directors. These special resolutions also passed with 99.99% votes in favour.

What the numbers show

A distinct pattern emerges when analyzing the voting behavior by shareholder category. While Promoters and Public Institutions voted unanimously in favour of all resolutions (0 dissenting votes), dissent was exclusively observed within the Public Non-Institutional segment. For the first resolution (adoption of financials), 2,750 votes were cast against by non-institutional public shareholders, representing 0.46% of their polled votes. For subsequent resolutions regarding director appointments and auditor remuneration, dissenting votes rose slightly to 2,780, indicating a consistent, albeit minor, level of disagreement among retail investors regarding management decisions.