Deco-Mica loses two directors for missing every board meeting for a year.
Gunjan Pandya and Nupur Modi never attended a meeting in 12 months, triggering a forced exit under the Companies Act. For a ₹26 cr market-cap firm, two simultaneous departures for negligence is unusual.
What's new
- Two Deco-Mica directors were removed on May 29, 2026, for missing 12 consecutive months of board meetings.
- The exit is mandatory under Section 167(1)(b) of the Companies Act, triggered by total absence.
- Neither director had sought leave of absence before the board formalised their removal.
Why this matters
Forced director exits are rare; two at once for the same reason signals a deeper governance problem. In a nano-cap with a ₹26 cr market cap, the board is the primary check on management. Losing two-thirds of its oversight in one stroke is a material event.
What we're watching
- Whether Deco-Mica discloses the reason behind the prolonged absences.
- If the board appoints replacements or continues with a reduced headcount.
- Any further governance disclosures in upcoming filings.
The full read
Deco-Mica lost two board members on May 29: Gunjan Yogesh Pandya and Nupur Bipinchandra Modi. The reason is simple. Both missed every single board meeting for 12 consecutive months, triggering a mandatory exit under the Companies Act. Neither asked for leave. For a ₹26 crore market-cap company, this is a significant governance event. The board is the primary check on management in such a small firm, and losing two directors in one stroke for negligence leaves it thinner. The filing gives no reason for the absences. The open question is why two directors would disengage so completely from a company small enough that every board seat matters.
Questions answered
- Why were the directors removed?
- Under Section 167(1)(b) of the Companies Act, a director who is absent from all board meetings for 12 consecutive months must vacate office. Neither Gunjan Pandya nor Nupur Modi attended any meetings during this period.
- Did the directors request time off?
- No. The filing states they did not seek leave of absence for any of the missed meetings before the board formalised their removal.
- How significant is this for a ₹26 crore company?
- Very. A nano-cap has a small board, so removing two directors for negligence materially reduces the company's oversight capacity. It also suggests potential internal friction or management disengagement.
- What happens to the board's composition now?
- The filing does not state whether replacements will be appointed. The immediate consequence is a reduced board, which could affect the company's ability to meet quorum and compliance requirements.