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 order holds that an additional director cannot continue beyond the statutory cut-off date without shareholder approval. Allowing delayed regularisation attracted penalties under Section 172.
NCLAT Delhi held that repeated application under section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for taking refuge of moratorium with malafide intention to defeat recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Authorities imposed mandatory penalties after directors failed to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report, breaching statutory disclosure obligations.
Section 7 application was initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent, in collusion between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, for purposes other than genuine insolvency resolution.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to maintain the statutory register of members is a clear violation of Section 88. Such non-compliance attracts monetary penalties on both the company and its directors.
Authorities held that non-holding of Board meetings since incorporation is a serious governance lapse. Directors were personally penalised for violating mandatory meeting requirements under company law.
Failure to file AOC-4 for multiple years led to penalties under Section 137(3). The order reiterates that statutory timelines are mandatory and enforceable through adjudication.
Authorities held that failure to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report violates statutory disclosure duties and attracts mandatory penalties.
The authority held that absence of a statutory register of members at the registered office violates Section 88. Administrative or record-keeping difficulties were not accepted as a defence, resulting in penalties on the company and directors.
The ROC imposed penalties after finding that mandatory Board Meetings were not held since incorporation. The key takeaway is that holding and documenting Board Meetings is a strict statutory obligation.
