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 : Learn about CARO, 2020 guidelines for reporting loans, guarantees, security, and investments by companies to ensure compliance and...
Company Law : Ensure compliance with updated Reporting on Audit Trail under Rule 11(g) of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014 for 202...
Company Law : Explore various threshold limits under the Companies Act, 2013, with detailed compliance requirements for listed, public, and priv...
Company Law : Understand the latest changes in DIR-3 KYC, including rules for updating email IDs and mobile numbers, fees, and filing details. L...
Company Law : Understand the nuances of signing board reports and financial statements under Companies Act and SEBI (LODR). Learn who must sign ...
Company Law : Explore ICMAI detailed analysis of the Govt. committee report on enhancing cost audit effectiveness. Read insights & recommendatio...
Company Law : Discover the challenges faced by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India in filing Form DPT-3 for FY 2023-24. Learn about te...
Company Law : Explore the challenges faced by newly incorporated companies regarding mandatory ESI and EPF registrations in India, with proposed...
Company Law : Delve into the NFRA order controversy with detailed analysis on penalty imposition, opinion disparities, and key issues. Gain insi...
Company Law : Explore the issues and challenges in processing MCA forms at CPC. Learn about the proposed solutions for timely approval and the i...
Company Law : It is not the scope & objective of IBC to include Banks Financial Institutions who advanced loans to Home Buyers to be considered ...
Company Law : Explore the Calcutta High Court's decision in Uphealth Holdings, INC. Vs Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim & Ors. regarding the applicability ...
Company Law : Read the full NCLT judgment where Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited sought to withdraw its merger with Sony Groups, impacting ...
Company Law : Explore the implications of issuing duplicate debenture certificates under the Companies Act, 2013. Learn about legal remedies, as...
Company Law : Explore the detailed judgment in the Grand Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nitin Batra & Ors. case by NCLAT Delhi, including key argument...
Company Law : Discover the key changes in the Nidhi (Amendment) Rules, 2024. Learn how the new rules impact Nidhi companies and their naming con...
Company Law : General Circular No- 07/2024: Forms IEPF-3 merges with IEPF-4 and IEPF-7 with IEPF-1 in MCA Version 3. Simplifying compliance for ...
Company Law : Circular No. 06/2024 MCA has waived the additional fee for filing various IEPF e-forms (IEPF-1, IEPF-1A, IEPF-2, IEPF-4) and e-ver...
Company Law : IEPF Authority (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Amendment Rules, 2024: Streamlining online transfers and updated forms. Re...
Company Law : Check out the latest Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2024 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, omitting word Nidhi f...
Now a day, Banks are more emphasizing on demanding Search Repots from Limited Companies while opening of Bank Accounts or giving the Loan to such Companies. The need for Search Reports arises to keep themselves (Banks) safe and to ensure that the company is not the defaulting one or having not the defaulting directors and to know the complete history and information about the company.
New norms have been put in place for Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) filing with effect from 6th October, 2011 for select class of companies. For the financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12 a total of 2,90,39 and 2,57,86 companies respectively have filed their Balance Sheet using the revised XBRL norms. Giving this information in written […]
During last five years i.e. from 2008-09 to 2012-13 a total of 782 inspection reports in respect of companies were received in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Based on the findings in the inspection reports, penal actions have been taken against the companies and their directors/officers in default for violation of various provisions of the […]
1. For incorporating a private limited company, there must be: At Least 2 Promoters: Promoters who will promote/ incorporate the company. Promoters may be individual or body corporate. AND
At the outset, it is clear that as it is in the judgment of the Division Bench, which arose almost under similar circumstances, wherein the learned judge has abruptly dismissed the application for injunction on the ground that the company court has no jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order or injunction or direction, except to safeguard the interest of the creditors.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and taking into account all the contentions raised by the affidavits and reply affidavits, considering the decisions of other High Courts, Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this High Court on the issues raised by the Regional Director and the submissions during the course of hearing, I am satisfied that the observations made by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, do not survive. I have come to the conclusion that the present scheme of arrangement is in the interest of its shareholders and creditors as well as in the public interest and the same deserves to be sanctioned.
Merely because a financial loss would be suffered by the appellant qua the arbitration Awards which had been passed against him would not entitle him to come under the exception seeking a refusal of the restoration of the company. The position of the company vis-à-vis this stand is that a healthy company who was admittedly operational at the time when its name was struck off would be deprived of its right to function as a going concern and in the bargain would not be permitted to recover its dues which amounts have accrued to it under the Awards of the Arbitral Tribunal.
In the present case, there were undoubtedly three separate contracts entered into between the parties. One was for the supply of cables and the other two for supply of accessories, i.e., Jumpers, Connectors and Surge Arrestors. Both the parties have been dealing with each other for over seven years. The Petitioner itself being the manufacturer of cables and accessories knew that for the purpose of the business of the Respondent the mere supply of cables without the accessories could not be sufficient. The Respondent was in turn supplying cables and accessories to the telecom service providers including Tata Tele Services Limited (‘TTL’). The mere supply of cables to TTL would not have constituted a complete delivery of goods. The peak period in the telecom industry for the supply of cables was the first three months of the year. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Petitioner to supply the accessories would adversely affect the corresponding obligations of the Respondent to its customers.
It was observed by the CLB that if the Appellants failed to cooperate with NHEL for the determination of the value of the occupied premises, including land, plant and machinery and do not accept the fair value of the assets determined, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order thus makes it impossible for the Appellants to even question the valuation. Having succeeded in demonstrating oppression by the Respondents, the Appellants cannot be compelled to accept an arbitrary and unilateral determination of the fair value by the Respondents not based on any sound financial and accounting principles. The remedy provided by the CLB has thus been rendered illusory.
Further it is clarified that fee payable for forms on/till 16-01-2013 will remain payable along with additional fee and relaxation of any additional fee will be considered for forms on or after 17-01-2013.
