Company Law India: Read latest Company law news & updates, acts, circular, notifications & articles issued by MCA amendment in companies Act 2013. Article on Loans Company formation XBRL, Schedule VI IFRS.
Company Law : Private limited companies with turnover above ₹200 crore or borrowings exceeding ₹100 crore must appoint an internal auditor u...
Company Law : The article highlights how companies completed PAS-3 filings but failed to maintain critical Right Issue documentation such as off...
Company Law : The Companies Act, 2013 and related rules now require most public and private companies to issue and transfer securities only in d...
Company Law : The Companies Law Amendment Bill, 2026 proposes major reforms in corporate governance, compliance, and digital regulation. This ar...
Company Law : This guide explains the complete legal procedure for shifting a company’s registered office within the same state but under a di...
Company Law : Provisional list of audit firms of listed companies yet to file NFRA-2 for 2023-24. Filing deadline was 30.11.2025; fines apply fo...
Company Law : ICSI recommended restoring public access to basic company master data without mandatory login requirements. The representation sta...
Company Law : The issue concerns eligibility and participation rules for the convocation. ICSI has clarified that members who do not attend will...
Company Law : NFRA introduced guidelines to evaluate audit firms’ compliance and quality control systems. The framework emphasizes governance,...
Company Law : ICSI has proposed revising the CS syllabus to align with the National Education Policy and global practices. Stakeholder input wil...
Company Law : A resolution applicant could not unilaterally alter its financial proposal through a last minute addendum after completion of the ...
Company Law : The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to...
Company Law : NCLT Mumbai held that existence of an arbitration clause in the MoU did not bar initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. The...
Company Law : NCLT held that inclusion of a prospective bidder in an email chain was an isolated inadvertent act caused by auto-suggest and not ...
Company Law : The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings that the arrangement allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive 50% of PUFE re...
Company Law : ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Se...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Secti...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai-II imposed penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly mentioned the AGM date in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order h...
The process outlines Board approval, ROC filing, and compliance requirements for shifting a registered office within city limits. The key takeaway is strict adherence to timelines and documentation.
Non-adherence to Secretarial Standard-2 in maintaining AGM minutes resulted in penalties on the company and its officers. The authority rejected claims of procedural lapses being minor or inadvertent. The case emphasizes the binding nature of secretarial standards under company law.
The authority penalized incorrect classification of shareholders in Form MGT-7A. It held that errors in statutory filings attract liability even if later corrected.
Repeated failure to respond to MCA notices resulted in penalties and an ex-parte order. The authority emphasized accountability for statutory filing defaults. The case serves as a cautionary example of the consequences of regulatory non-engagement.
The company was denied reduced penalties as it did not qualify under the definition of a small company. Full penalties were imposed for failure to file financial statements on time. The ruling clarifies the limited applicability of leniency provisions under the Companies Act.
The issue involved failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline. The ROC imposed penalties on both the company and its director. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of statutory filing requirements under the Companies Act.
Failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline resulted in monetary penalties. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 137(3) compliance requirements.
The authority penalized the company for not maintaining a valid registered office address. It held that such failure constitutes a continuing statutory default attracting daily penalties.
The authority penalized the managing director for wrongly declaring CSR as not applicable in financial filings. It held that signatories are responsible for accuracy, even in inadvertent errors.
Failure to maintain a functional registered office led to penalties on the company and its directors. The ruling stresses that companies must always ensure accessibility for official communications.
