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...
I am directed to inform you that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has decided to extend the last date of filing and to relax the additional fees applicable on forms as per the provisions of Companies Act read with rules made there-under, which have been ought to be filed post transition of MCA 21 w.e.f. 17.01.2013, but could not be filed due to technical issues in MCA-21 system.
SECTION 77 restricts the buyback of own shares from the market by the company or its subsidiaries/parent company. This restriction was imposed on the companies to ensure that these companies do not indulge in unfair and mal trade practices by unnecessarily blowing up their share prices in the market and misleading the investors by giving the misconception that their shares are doing well in the market by adopting techniques of speculation.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs acknowledges that services on MCA 21 are not of the fullest satisfaction of the stakeholders for last few days. The Ministry is seized of the matter and taking all necessary steps for smooth functioning of MCA21.
CA Punkaj Jain OUTLINE Background of Companies Bill, 2012 Definition Audit & Auditors Penal provisions Loans and Investments Directors, KMP’s and Governance Corporate Social Responsibility Regulatory bodies (NCLT, NFRA, SFIO)
Last aspect of the matter i.e., the argument as to why yet another Form was filed on 05.04.2004. The conduct of respondent no. 3 in this regard is explained by reference to ROC’s letter dated 26.03.2004, whereby they were advised to file a revised duplicate Form by an authorised person to rectify the objections. It is quite possible that having received the said communication, respondent no.3 filed yet another Form on 05.04.2004.
The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before the inference of the inability of the company to pay its debts based on the legal fiction therein is drawn. The judgment is the specific recognition, in the context of the identical provision in the predecessor statute as Section 434(1)(a) of the current Act, of the general principle that a deeming provision must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must have been adhered to before the legal fiction thereunder can be seen to operate.
Since the company’s counterclaim is by way of an unliquidated sum in damages, and the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim herein, the company is permitted to furnish security to the extent of the petitioner’s claim of Rs.1,41,38,347/- within a fortnight from date whereupon this petition will remain permanently stayed. The company says that it has instituted winding-up proceedings in respect of its claim against the petitioner under the agreement of April 7, 2010.
Before resolving the disputed questions as to whether the offer can be treated as public issue or not, and as to whether the right of renunciation was offered only under the mandate of section 81(3), etc.; the question regarding jurisdiction of the first respondent need be looked into. It is evident that the second respondent had once initiated action under exhibit P3 and such action was subsequently dropped.
The question which falls for consideration in this matter is not of petitioners suffering prejudice or not by grant of impugned Approval but is whether it results in failure of justice. It is in this context, grant of post decisional hearing assumes importance. Apex Court in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy [2005] 6 SCC 321, has considered the issue of no prejudice vis-à-vis grant of post decisional hearing while observing as under:-
MCA has kept entire corporate on hold. New companies are not incorporating and existing companies can’t file their returns due. On 17 January 2013, MCA changed its drivers of site. Earlier TCS use to manage MCA21, not batten has been passed to Infosys. The site is under transitional stage and hence some problems are bound to occur.
