GP Petroleums Ltd has accepted the resignation of Harshavardhan Sinha from its Board of Directors, effective September 19, 2026. The company disclosed the departure in a filing with stock exchanges on September 21, 2026.

Sinha served as a Non-Executive, Non-Independent Director. His exit follows a resignation letter dated September 19, 2026, which he submitted to the board. The company confirmed that he ceased to hold the position with immediate effect on the specified date.

Reason for Resignation

In his resignation letter, Sinha attributed his decision to personal logistical constraints. He stated that he needs to be based substantially more in the United Kingdom over the coming months to meet UK residence and immigration requirements.

He noted that this relocation would prevent him from devoting the necessary time and physical presence in India required for the board role. Consequently, he concluded it was the appropriate time to relinquish his position.

Regulatory Compliance

The disclosure was made pursuant to Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The filing also referenced Schedule III of the regulations and SEBI Circular No. HO/49/14/14(7)2025-CFDPOD2/I/3762/2026 dated January 30, 2026.

The company enclosed a copy of the resignation letter along with the detailed reasons provided by Sinha, as mandated under Clause 7C of Para A of Part A of Schedule III to the SEBI Listing Regulations. Kanika Sehgal Sadana, Company Secretary and Compliance Officer, signed the intimation.

GP Petroleums Limited concluded its 43rd Annual General Meeting (AGM) on August 26, 2026, with shareholders approving all eight agenda items. The scrutinizer’s report confirmed that promoters voted in favor of every resolution, while public institutional investors showed dissent only on one director appointment.

The meeting was conducted via video conferencing, with 59 shareholders attending virtually. No shareholders were present in person or through proxy. Corporate shareholders representing 50.73% of the paid-up equity share capital, holding 2,58,66,170 equity shares, appointed authorized representatives for the meeting.

Voting Results Overview

Mr. Harshad Ashok Pusalkar of Pusalkar & Co., a Practicing Company Secretary, served as the scrutinizer for the e-voting process. The total number of shareholders as of the cut-off date (August 19, 2026) was 36,043. A total of 2,62,00,270 votes were polled across all resolutions.

Key Resolutions Passed

Shareholders voted on eight agenda items through remote e-voting and e-voting during the AGM. The ordinary business items included the adoption of standalone and consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2026, and the declaration of a dividend.

The re-appointment of Mr. Arjun Verma, who retires by rotation, was also approved as an ordinary resolution. The cost auditors for the financial year 2026-27 were confirmed as M/s. Dilip M. Bathija.

Board Appointments

The special business items focused on board composition:

• Mr. Dilip U Vaswani was appointed as a Non-Executive Non-Independent Director. This resolution saw dissent from public institutional investors, who voted entirely against the appointment (1,85,458 shares). However, promoter support ensured passage with 99.29% approval.
• Mr. Harshavardhan Sinha was appointed as a Non-Executive Non-Independent Director via a special resolution.
• Mr. Sukumaran Jeyakrishnan and Ms. Sandra Martyres were appointed as Non-Executive Independent Directors for their first term of two consecutive years via special resolutions.

Governance and Audit

The Company Secretary confirmed that there were no qualifications in the statutory audit report or the secretarial audit report. The results were announced within two working days of the meeting's conclusion, as per regulatory requirements.

What the Numbers Show

The voting data reveals a clear divergence between promoter and public institutional interests regarding the appointment of Mr. Dilip U Vaswani. While promoters held 100% of their votes in favor, public institutional investors voted 100% against. This suggests specific institutional concerns about this particular board addition, despite the resolution passing due to promoter control. For all other resolutions, including other director appointments, public institutional support was unanimous or near-unanimous.