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 : Explains Directors’ Report requirements under the Companies Act, 2013, including AOC-1, AOC-2, CSR disclosures, applicability, s...
Company Law : Article reviews Indian and UK court rulings stressing verification of AI-generated legal research and rejecting reliance on fake j...
Company Law : Learn which companies must file MGT-7 or MGT-7A, when MGT-8 certification is mandatory, and how the Companies (Management and Admi...
Company Law : The Companies Act, 2013 requires most companies to hold four Board Meetings annually, while OPCs, Small Companies, and Dormant Com...
Company Law : This guide provides a complete AGM compliance tracker covering pre-AGM, AGM-day, post-AGM, and IEPF obligations under the Companie...
Company Law : MCA has cautioned stakeholders against phishing calls, WhatsApp messages, emails, fake websites, and ZIP attachments impersonating...
Company Law : ICSI has urged PESB to recognize Company Secretaries as eligible for Board-level and Functional Director positions in CPSEs. The r...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the Government to amend the law to allow Company Secretaries in Practice to appear before DRTs and DRATs. It argues...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the MCA to ensure eligible companies comply with Section 203 by appointing Whole-time Company Secretaries. The repr...
Company Law : ICSI has requested the MCA to grant compliance relaxations following technical disruptions caused by the Data Centre fire. The pro...
Company Law : Delhi HC lays down a framework on the right to be forgotten, directing de-indexing in eligible cases while balancing privacy, open...
Company Law : CCI closed proceedings holding dealership termination and contractual disputes did not establish violations of Sections 3(4) or 4 ...
Company Law : NCLAT held resignation, renewal of working capital facilities and alleged novation did not discharge a continuing personal guarant...
Company Law : Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed a winding up petition, holding that a bona fide dispute over liability required adjudication before th...
Company Law : Orissa HC upheld an ex parte interim injunction, holding it should rest on Order XXXIX CPC instead of Section 151, and declined Ar...
Company Law : MCA extends the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 up to 31 August 2026 due to data center restoration following the...
Company Law : MCA has allowed companies to file Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 without additional fees until 31 July 2026 due to disruptions caused b...
Company Law : MCA notifies the New Development Bank under Section 2(11)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying it as a body corporate for th...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
NCLAT Delhi held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding [CIRP] should be restricted to specific project. Accordingly, held that project wise resolution of the Corporate Debtor needs to be proceeded with as required by law.
The adjudicating authority held that incorrect information in Form AOC-4 XBRL violated Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Penalties were imposed on the director and the certifying CA responsible for the filing.
Despite a 595-day delay in filing financial statements under Section 137, ROC imposed no penalty because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice. The ruling highlights relief available under Section 454(2).
ROC levied a ₹2 lakh penalty on the company and ₹50,000 each on directors for failure to file annual returns. The decision highlights consequences of prolonged non-compliance under Section 92.
ROC Chennai imposed the maximum statutory penalty after a company failed to file financial statements for FY 2014–15 and did not respond to notices. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 137 compliance.
ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for filing the annual return 877 days late under Section 92. The order highlights strict enforcement of statutory filing timelines.
ROC held that although financial statements were filed with a 229-day delay, no penalty was imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 199-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice was issued.
ROC Chennai ruled that despite a 565-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed since the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 930-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company filed the return before the adjudication notice was issued.
