AmpVolts Limited, formerly known as Quest Softech (India) Limited, has announced the forfeiture of 2,89,087 partly paid-up equity shares due to non-payment of call money. This corporate action, approved by the company's Board of Directors on November 14, 2025, comes after shareholders failed to meet the payment deadline despite multiple notices and reminders.

Key Details of the Forfeiture

Background and Process

The forfeiture is related to a rights issue conducted by Ampvolts Limited, which involved the issuance of up to 1,60,00,000 partly paid-up equity shares at a price of ₹30 per rights equity share. The company had issued multiple notices to shareholders:

1. First Call Money Notice: Dated July 04, 2024
2. Second and Final Call Money Notice: Dated October 15, 2024
3. Reminder-cum-forfeiture Notice: Dated January 29, 2025

Despite these notices, some shareholders failed to pay the required call money by the final deadline of February 13, 2025.

Implications for Shareholders

The forfeiture has significant consequences for the affected shareholders:

• Complete loss of shares and amounts already paid
• Extinction of all interests, claims, and demands against the company regarding the forfeited shares
• Termination of all rights incidental to the forfeited shares

Company's Position

According to the LODR filing, Ampvolts Limited now considers the forfeited shares as company property. The company retains the right to:

• Sell or dispose of the forfeited shares
• Cancel the forfeiture on terms it deems fit

Compliance and Communication

Ampvolts Limited has taken steps to ensure regulatory compliance and shareholder communication:

• Filed the necessary disclosures under Regulation 30 of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015
• Sent individual notices to affected shareholders detailing the forfeiture and its implications

This corporate action underscores the importance for investors to stay vigilant about payment deadlines and company notices, especially in cases of partly paid-up shares. It also highlights the potential risks associated with non-compliance in rights issues and call money payments.

AmpVolts faces a significant corporate governance challenge as Independent Director Jaydeep Mehta resigns amid serious allegations from the company. The resignation and subsequent allegations highlight potential governance issues within the organization.

Key Points of Resignation and Allegations

• Resignation Date: Initially September 22, 2025, put on hold, then finalized
• Position Resigned: Independent Director
• Alleged Confidentiality Breach: On August 22, 2025, Mehta allegedly sent an internal board email to external parties without proper authorization
• Conflict of Interest: AmpVolts claims Mehta's firm LexStreet Advisors LLP represented shareholders in actions against the company without disclosure

Company's Allegations

1. Confidentiality Violation: AmpVolts alleges Mehta shared an internal board email recommending a special committee and financial audit with external parties, including shareholders Anant Shah and Manisha Shah.

2. Undisclosed Conflict of Interest: The company claims Mehta's firm was representing shareholders involved in adversarial actions against AmpVolts, which was not disclosed.

3. Disregard for Existing Audit: AmpVolts states an independent audit completed on July 16, 2025, found no irregularities, suggesting Mehta's recommendation for another audit was unnecessary.

Timeline of Events

Company's Response

AmpVolts Limited has stated that it has preserved email evidence related to the allegations. The company is considering legal proceedings for alleged violations of the Companies Act provisions.

Implications and Next Steps

This development raises significant questions about AmpVolts' corporate governance and the circumstances surrounding Mehta's resignation. The allegations of confidentiality breaches and conflicts of interest are serious matters that may attract further scrutiny from regulatory bodies and shareholders.

The company's decision to consider legal action suggests a contentious relationship with the former independent director. How AmpVolts addresses these governance concerns and manages the fallout from these allegations will be crucial in maintaining investor confidence and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.

As the situation develops, stakeholders will likely look for transparency from AmpVolts regarding the allegations, any internal investigations, and steps taken to strengthen corporate governance practices.