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 adjudicating authority ruled that filing statutory e-forms with incorrect particulars constitutes a completed violation. Subsequent requests to mark forms defective do not erase penalty liability.
An incorrect AGM date disclosed in an annual return led to penal action. The ruling clarifies that accuracy in statutory disclosures is mandatory and strictly enforced.
The adjudicating authority held that non-disclosure of auditor-reported non-compliances violates statutory reporting duties. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and defaulting directors.
Failure to explain auditor-noted violations of Nidhi Rules resulted in penalties on the company and directors. The order reinforces strict disclosure duties under company law.
The order confirms that filing incorrect financial statements triggers penalties even if errors are later admitted and rectified. Post-filing administrative correction does not erase liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that failure to display a complete registered office address violated Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act. The case reinforces that even procedural lapses can attract the maximum statutory penalty if left unrectified.
This article breaks down Section 12 requirements on maintaining and verifying a registered office. The key takeaway is that non-compliance can trigger penalties and strike-off action.
The tribunal held that a petition is not maintainable where the applicant is neither a shareholder nor member, and where disputes stem from a private MoU rather than company affairs.
The Court held that compounding under the Companies Act requires payment by the concerned officer himself and directed correction of records where a third party had paid.
The appellate tribunal upheld dismissal of a belated company appeal, holding that limitation ran from the date the appellant admitted knowledge of the transfer. Time spent in a prior civil suit could not be excluded, and the appeal remained time-barred.
