Meesho CEO, MD, chairman, board of directors and AGM

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 18 Sep 2026, 10 fund houses so far (houses' deadline to file 15 Oct 2026)

• To receive, consider and adopt the Audited Standalone and Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company for the financial year ended March 31, 2026, together with the Reports of the Board of Directors and Auditors thereon.MoreLess

  10 for0 against
• To re-appoint Mr. Mukul Arora, (DIN: 01099294), who retires by rotation as a Director and, being eligible, offers himself for re-appointment

  10 for0 against
• To approve the alteration of the Articles of Association of the Company.

  ›Against Angel One Mutual Fund, DSP Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, Jio BlackRock Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual Fund

  • Angel One Mutual FundGovernance Concern: The proposed 8% investor threshold and “top 2 investors” criterion, along with the lower 3% threshold for Founders’ nomination rights, could result in disproportionate Board representation relative to their continuing economic interest. Further, changes in shareholding could lead to frequent changes in Board representation, potentially affecting Board stability and continuity.
  • DSP Mutual Fund, Jio BlackRock Mutual FundThe company seeks approval to amend Article 122 of its Articles of Association. The proposed amendments relate to the nomination rights of the founders, significant investors, and lenders. Under Article 122(A), Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Kumar (the founders) shall be entitled to remain on and/or be appointed to the board for as long as they collectively hold at least 3% of the paid-up equity share capital, or ~756.2 million equity shares. Under Article 122(B), each of the two largest non-promoter shareholders holding at least 8% of the equity share capital on a fully diluted basis, shall have the right to nominate one Non-Executive Non-Independent Director to the board. Under Article 122(C), the company may agree to allow a lender to nominate one or more directors to the board for as long as the loan or financial assistance remains outstanding or the relevant agreement remains in force. While we are comfortable with lenders’ nomination rights. However, for board nomination rights for promoters and strategic investors, we expect the rights of promoters and strategic investors to be subject to a minimum shareholding threshold of at least 10%, in line with our voting guidelines. We do not support the resolution.
  • Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Navi Mutual FundCompliant with Law. Governance Concern: The proposed 8% investor threshold and “top 2 investors” criterion, along with the lower 3% threshold for Founders’ nomination rights, could result in disproportionate Board representation relative to their continuing economic interest. Further, changes in shareholding could lead to frequent changes in Board representation, potentially affecting Board stability and continuity.
  • ICICI Prudential Mutual FundThe threshold of 3% is too low considering the founders' current shareholding of 16%+. This raises a governance concern hence, the AMC has voted against the resolution.

  4 for6 against

Mutual fund votes, meeting of 12 Feb 2026, 14 fund houses

• RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF “MEESHO LIMITED - EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN 2024” (“ESOP 2024 PLAN”)

  ›Against Axis Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Canara Robeco Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, HSBC Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Tata Mutual Fund, UTI Mutual Fund

  • Axis Mutual Fund, Canara Robeco Mutual FundUnder ESOP 2024, the company can issue up to 475,505,141 equity shares and 9,306,284 stock options, comprising 7,533,809 options under Pool-1 (convertible into 369,156,641 equity shares) and 1,772,475 options under Pool-2 (convertible into 106,348,500 equity shares), each equity share having a face value of Re. 1/- (Rupees One).The minimum vesting period will be one year, and the maximum vesting period will be ten years. The vesting of options would be subject to employee’s continued employment and will vest as per the vesting schedule stipulated in the letter of grant or the relevant ESOP document given to the grantee at the time of grant of options. In addition, the board/NRC may also specify certain performance parameters/ milestones on the achievement of which the options would vest.The exercise price will be determined by the NRC and will not be less than the face value of the shares. Hence, there is no clarity on the exercise price of options. ESOPs are ‘pay at risk’ options that employees accept at the time of grant, which is protected if the ESOPs are issued at significant discount to market price. If the stock options are granted at a significant discount, there is no alignment between the interests of investors and employees. As a good practice, companies must grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics and targets. Given the absence of clarity on the exercise price, we do not support the scheme.Further, we raise concern on the long exercise period of up to ten years, as it can materially increase the cost of the option and probability for the option to be in-the money. It is uncommon for companies to have such an extended exercise period under ESOP schemes. We do not support the resolution.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual FundNon-compliant with SEBI (SBEB & SE) Regulations, 2021: Non-Disclosure of Exercise Price; NRC discretion to determine Exercise Price. Governance concern: Potential economic benefits to a single employee appear to be excessive. Power to the NRC to accelerate vesting period.
  • Franklin Templeton Mutual FundA vote AGAINST this resolution is warranted because: • The company has not specified objective performance parameters, performance targets and thresholds for vesting. • The stock options may be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price. • The scheme allows employees to exercise their options for an indefinite period post vesting, which is unusual practice in this market.
  • HSBC Mutual FundA vote AGAINST these resolutions is warranted because:• The company has not specified objective performance parameters, performance targets and thresholds for vesting.• The stock options may be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price.• The scheme allows employees to exercise their options for an indefinite period post vesting, which is unusual practice in this market.
  • Invesco Mutual FundUnder ESOP 2024, the company can issue up to 475,505,141 equity shares and 9,306,284 stock options, comprising 7,533,809 options under Pool-1 (convertible into 369,156,641 equity shares) and 1,772,475 options under Pool-2 (convertible into 106,348,500 equity shares), each equity share having a face value of Re. 1/- (Rupees One). The minimum vesting period will be one year, and the maximum vesting period will be ten years. The vesting of options would be subject to employee’s continued employment and will vest as per the vesting schedule stipulated in the letter of grant or the relevant ESOP document given to the grantee at the time of grant of options. In addition, the board/NRC may also specify certain performance parameters/ milestones on the achievement of which the options would vest. The exercise price will be determined by the NRC and will not be less than the face value of the shares. Hence, there is no clarity on the exercise price of options. ESOPs are ‘pay at risk’ options that employees accept at the time of grant, which is protected if the ESOPs are issued at significant discount to market price. If the stock options are granted at a significant discount, there is no alignment between the interests of investors and employees. As a good practice, companies must grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics and targets. Given the absence of clarity on the exercise price, we do not support the scheme. Further, we raise concern on the long exercise period of up to ten years, as it can materially increase the cost of the option and probability for the option to be in-the money. It is uncommon for companies to have such an extended exercise period under ESOP schemes. We do not support the resolution
  • Motilal Oswal Mutual FundNon-compliant with SEBI (SBEB & SE) Regulations, 2021: Non-Disclosure of Exercise Price; NRC discretion to determine Exercise Price. Governance concern: Potential economic benefits to a single employee appear to be excessive.
  • Tata Mutual FundUnder ESOP 2024, the company can issue up to 475,505,141 equity shares and 9,306,284 stock options, comprising 7,533,809 options under Pool-1 (convertible into 369,156,641 equity shares) and 1,772,475 options under Pool-2 (convertible into 106,348,500 equity shares), each equity share having a face value of Re. 1/- (Rupees One).The minimum vesting period will be one year, and the maximum vesting period will be ten years. The vesting of options would be subject to employee’s continued employment and will vest as per the vesting schedule stipulated in the letter of grant or the relevant ESOP document given to the grantee at the time of grant of options. In addition, the board/NRC may also specify certain performance parameters/ milestones on the achievement of which the options would vest. As discussed with the company, these ESOPs were issued at face value. ESOPs are ‘pay at risk’ options that employees accept at the time of grant, which is protected if the ESOPs are issued at significant discount to market price. If the stock options are granted at a significant discount, there is no alignment between the interests of investors and employees. As a good practice, companies must grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics and targets. Hence, we do not support the scheme.
  • UTI Mutual FundThere is no clarity on the exercise price of options. As a good practice, companies must grant stock options at market price, or the options should have a performance-based vesting with clearly defined performance metrics and targets. Given the absence of clarity on the exercise price, we do not support the scheme.

  4 for10 against
• RATIFICATION OF THE EXTENSION OF BENEFITS OF “MEESHO LIMITED - EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN 2024” (“ESOP 2024 PLAN”) TO THE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

  ›Against Axis Mutual Fund, Bandhan Mutual Fund, Canara Robeco Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, HSBC Mutual Fund, Invesco Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Tata Mutual Fund, UTI Mutual Fund

  • Axis Mutual Fund, UTI Mutual FundThrough resolution #2, the company is seeking approval to extend the Meesho Limited - Employee Stock Option Plan 2024 to eligible employees of subsidiary companies. Our view on this resolution is linked to resolution #1. We do not support the resolution.
  • Bandhan Mutual Fund, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund, Tata Mutual FundInterlinked with Resolution #1.
  • Canara Robeco Mutual FundThrough resolution #2, the company is seeking approval to extend the Meesho Limited - Employee Stock Option Plan 2024 to eligible employees of subsidiary companies. Given the absence of clarity on the exercise price, we do not support the scheme. Further, we raise concern on the long exercise period of up to ten years, as it can materially increase the cost of the option and probability for the option to be in-the money. It is uncommon for companies to have such an extended exercise period under ESOP schemes. We do not support the resolution.
  • Franklin Templeton Mutual FundA vote AGAINST this resolution is warranted because: • The company has not specified objective performance parameters, performance targets and thresholds for vesting. • The stock options may be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price. • The scheme allows employees to exercise their options for an indefinite period post vesting, which is unusual practice in this market.
  • HSBC Mutual FundA vote AGAINST these resolutions is warranted because:• The company has not specified objective performance parameters, performance targets and thresholds for vesting.• The stock options may be issued with an exercise price at a discount to the current market price.• The scheme allows employees to exercise their options for an indefinite period post vesting, which is unusual practice in this market.
  • Invesco Mutual FundThe company is seeking approval to extend the Meesho Limited - Employee Stock Option Plan 2024 to eligible employees of subsidiary companies. We do not support the resolution

  4 for10 against
• APPOINTMENT OF M/S. BMP & CO. LLP, PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES AS SECRETARIAL AUDITORS OF THE COMPANY

  14 for0 against

• Unlisted stake heldMeesho Grocery Private Limited (‘MGPL’), Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Meesho Limited (the ‘Company’)Since 4 Aug 2026

  0.00% bought in the quarter; holding 100.00%, from 100.00%

• Unlisted stake boughtMeesho Payments Private Limited (‘MPPL’), Subsidiary of the Meesho Limited (the ‘Company’)Since 30 Jul 2026

  0.01% bought in the quarter; holding 100.00%, from 99.99%

The board is made up as the listing rules require

Yes

The board has a regular chairperson

Yes

The company has a risk management committee

Yes

The chair is related to the managing director

Yes

The filing has a part on fines and penalties

No

The filing has a part on tax disputes

No

There was a cyber security incident in the quarter

No

The company's own answers in its filing.