Shalimar Paints shareholders have approved a comprehensive capital restructuring plan, including a ₹1,000 crore QIP and massive non-cash equity issuances. The resolutions passed at the extraordinary general meeting on September 11, 2026, received overwhelming support from promoters.

The meeting, chaired by Chairman Dr. Rajeev Uberoi, was conducted via video conferencing with the registered office in Gurugram as the deemed venue. The management confirmed that the requisite quorum was present to transact business under the Companies Act, 2013.

Voting Results

Remote electronic voting was facilitated by National Securities Depository Limited from September 7 to September 10, 2026. Mr. Ankush Agarwal of MAKS & Co. served as the scrutinizer. The consolidated results show strong promoter backing but varying levels of support from public non-institutional investors.

Promoter and promoter group shareholders voted unanimously in favour of all four special resolutions. Public institutions also voted 100% in favour across all items. However, public non-institutional shareholders voted against the non-cash equity and CCPS issuances at a rate of nearly 30%, while supporting the cash equity and QIP resolutions above 81%.

Capital Raise Structure

The shareholders passed special resolutions for four distinct capital raising mechanisms:

• Equity Shares (Cash): Up to 83,03,072 shares. This figure reflects a corrigendum issued on September 3, 2026, following observations from the NSE regarding the initial notice.
• Equity Shares (Non-Cash): Up to 41,70,21,987 shares. These are issued for consideration other than cash, indicating potential asset swaps or strategic partnerships.
• CCPS (Non-Cash): Up to 81,12,02,664 Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares. Like the non-cash equity, these are for consideration other than cash.
• Qualified Institutions Placement: Up to ₹1,000 crore. This provides flexibility for future operational funding or debt reduction through issuance to eligible investors.

What the Numbers Show

The scale of the non-cash equity issuance (over 417 million shares) dwarfs the cash equity component (83 million shares). This suggests the primary objective is likely structural—such as acquiring assets or merging entities—rather than just raising liquidity. The additional ₹1,000 crore QIP provides flexibility for future operational funding or debt reduction. The divergence in voting behaviour, with public non-institutions opposing the non-cash issues more strongly than the cash/QIP components, highlights investor caution regarding dilution from asset-based transactions versus pure capital infusion.

Shareholders of Shalimar Paints approved all five resolutions proposed at its 124th Annual General Meeting held on September 9, 2026. The meeting was conducted via video conference.

The company disclosed the voting results pursuant to Regulation 44 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. A total of 63,551,350 votes were polled out of 83,711,178 outstanding equity shares, representing a participation rate of 75.92%.

Key Resolutions Approved

The ordinary business items included the adoption of audited standalone and consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026. Shareholders also approved the reappointment of Aaditya Gajendra Sharda as a director, replacing himself upon retirement by rotation.

Special business items covered an increase and restructuring of the authorized share capital and an increase in investment limits under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013. Additionally, shareholders ratified the remuneration payable to cost auditors for the financial year 2026-27.

Voting Breakdown

All resolutions received overwhelming support from the promoter group, which voted in favor with 100% of its polled votes. Public non-institutional shareholders showed slightly higher dissent on special resolutions compared to ordinary ones.

What the Numbers Show

Promoter participation was near-total, with 99.94% of promoter-held shares casting votes. In contrast, public institutional participation was minimal at just 4.40% of held shares, while public non-institutional participation stood at 3.99%. This disparity highlights that the voting outcome was heavily driven by promoter engagement rather than broad-based retail or institutional input.