Manoj Ceramic shareholders approve all six resolutions at 20th AGM
- Manoj Ceramic Ltd passed all six resolutions at its 20th AGM held on September 22, 2026
- Shareholders unanimously approved audited standalone and consolidated financial statements for FY26
- Re-appointment of Dhruv Rakhasiya as Director was ratified with 100% support from polled votes
- Remuneration for three directors was approved via special resolutions with zero dissenting votes
- Promoter group accounted for the majority of votes polled, while public institutional holders abstained entirely

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Manoj Ceramic Limited held its 20th Annual General Meeting (AGM) on September 22, 2026, where shareholders unanimously approved all six proposed resolutions. The meeting, conducted via Video Conferencing, saw no votes cast against any agenda item.
The company’s Board of Directors adopted the audited standalone and consolidated financial statements for the financial year ended March 31, 2026. Additionally, the meeting approved the re-appointment of Dhruv Rakhasiya as a Director and ratified the remuneration payments for Executive Directors Manoj Dharamshi Rakhasiya and Aakash Manoj Rakhasiya, as well as Non-Executive Director Anjana Manoj Rakhasiya.
Voting outcomes and participation
The Consolidated Scrutinizer’s Report, issued by KDA & Associates, confirmed that all resolutions were passed with 100% of the polled votes in favour. A total of 7,394,200 shares were voted on for the ordinary resolutions regarding financial statements, representing 53.55% of the total outstanding shares of 13,807,000. For the special resolutions concerning director remuneration, the number of votes polled varied slightly due to invalid votes or abstentions in specific categories, but the final tally remained unanimous among valid votes.
| Resolution | Type | Votes Polled | Votes in Favour | Votes Against | % In Favour |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt Standalone FS | Ordinary | 7,394,200 | 7,394,200 | 0 | 100.00% |
| Adopt Consolidated FS | Ordinary | 7,394,200 | 7,394,200 | 0 | 100.00% |
| Re-appoint Dhruv Rakhasiya | Ordinary | 6,215,600 | 6,215,600 | 0 | 100.00% |
| Remuneration: Manoj D. Rakhasiya | Special | 5,644,000 | 5,644,000 | 0 | 100.00% |
| Remuneration: Aakash M. Rakhasiya | Special | 6,492,200 | 6,492,200 | 0 | 100.00% |
| Remuneration: Anjana M. Rakhasiya | Special | 4,426,200 | 4,426,200 | 0 | 100.00% |
Promoter influence on voting patterns
A clear pattern emerges when analyzing the voting behavior across different shareholder categories. The Promoter and Promoter Group, holding 7,372,800 shares, voted consistently across all resolutions. However, their participation rate varied significantly depending on the resolution type. For the adoption of financial statements, promoters voted 100% of their holdings. In contrast, for the re-appointment of Dhruv Rakhasiya, promoter votes polled dropped to 6,194,200, with 1,178,600 votes recorded as invalid or abstained. This trend continued for remuneration approvals, where promoter votes polled ranged from 4,404,800 to 6,470,800, indicating selective participation or procedural exclusions for interested parties in specific special resolutions.
Public institutional holders did not cast any votes across all six resolutions, despite holding 489,000 shares. Public non-institutional holders showed minimal engagement, casting only 21,400 votes for every resolution, which constituted less than 0.4% of their total holding of 5,945,200 shares. This suggests that the outcome of the AGM was predominantly determined by the promoter group’s voting decisions.
Historical Stock Returns for Manoj Ceramic
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -3.25% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +6.49% | -37.88% | -4.31% |
How will the near-total absence of institutional investor voting impact Manoj Ceramic's future ESG ratings and access to capital markets?
What strategic initiatives or capex plans are likely to be prioritized by the board following the unanimous approval of the FY26 financial statements?
Will the significant gap between promoter and public shareholder participation rates trigger regulatory scrutiny regarding corporate governance standards?


































