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 the legal procedures for director resignation and removal under the Companies Act, 2013, including compliance with ROC...
Company Law : Understand the process and requirements for converting an unlisted public company into an LLP, including necessary filings and doc...
Company Law : Understand if Form SH-7 is required during the conversion of CCPS to equity shares under the Companies Act, 2013, based on the aut...
Company Law : Learn about Section 203 of the Companies Act, its applicability to private companies, key provisions, and exceptions for companies...
Company Law : Understand stamp duty rules on share transfers in demat form for private limited companies. Covers legal framework, rates, respons...
Company Law : The Government acknowledges MCA-21 glitches, highlights improvements, ensures data security, and implements new features for bette...
Company Law : The Indian government has reduced reporting forms for companies on unclaimed dividends and integrated fund transfers with Bharatko...
Company Law : MCA21 portal saw 80.26 lakh form filings between April 2024 and January 2025, showcasing improved security, user experience, and s...
Company Law : Summary of NFRA's audit quality inspection of Lodha & Co., highlighting key deficiencies in audit documentation, independence poli...
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of M/s BSR & Co. LLP highlighted improvements in audit practices, independence policies, and documentation ...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that trusteeship deeds are generally signed between the trust on behalf of the lenders and the personal/ corporat...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that CoC decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor is acceptable as corporate debtor has no assets and thus CIRP...
Company Law : Delhi HC examines NFRA's jurisdiction in issuing show-cause notices to Engagement Quality Control Reviewers (EQCRs) under Section ...
Company Law : The view that NCLT had no jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 Application filed by the Financial Creditor and the Application oug...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that as per expressed provisions of section 101(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 moratorium period ...
Company Law : Infracx Developers Pvt Ltd penalized for delayed INC-20A filing under Section 10A of the Companies Act, 2013. Total penalty: ₹43...
Company Law : Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd. penalized for failing to appoint a woman director under Section 149(1) of the Companies Act. Penalty inclu...
Company Law : NFRA imposes Rs. 5 lakh penalty and 5-year debarment on CA Neeraj Bansal for professional misconduct during Religare Finvest Ltd's...
Company Law : MCA penalizes Chandrabangshi Nidhi Ltd for violating Section 118(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, due to failure to maintain meeting...
Company Law : United Technologies faces penalties for non-appointment of company secretary under the Companies Act, with fines for company and d...
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.
In the absence of any document showing that in fact possession of the premises were handed over to the Respondent in May, 2010 and in light of the stand taken by the Respondent that possession was handed over to it only in December 2010, the said issue raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without evidence led by the parties. In the circumstances this Court is unable to come to the conclusion at this stage that the defence of the Respondent is sham, false or mala fide. If indeed there is an arbitration agreement between the parties there is no reason as to why it cannot avail of that remedy and must necessarily seek the remedy of winding up.
The company was bound by its own articles and could not have taken a plea contrary to what is contained therein. On the death of the original shareholder ‘J’, in view of his Will dated 23-6-1996 and the subsequent settlement arrived at between his mother and son ‘D’ and daughter ‘L’, on 19-2-2009, 1/3rd shareholding of ‘G’ vested in each of the aforenoted persons and thereafter the death of Gayatri Devi on 20-9-2009 pursuant to her Will dated 10-5-2009, the shareholding then devolved upon the petitioner group i.e. D and L who admittedly had a succession certificate from a competent Court of law recognizing them as holders of the aforenoted shares of the original holder Jagat Singh. In terms of section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, 1965, this evidence was conclusive for the transmission of shares of the companies in favour of the petitioner group.
In continuation of MCA’s General Circular Nos. 8/2012, dated 10-5-2012 [as amended on June 29, 2012], 18/2012, dated 26-7-2012 and 43/2012, dated 26-12-2012, it has been decided that all cost auditors and the companies concerned are allowed to file their Cost Audit Reports and Compliance Reports for the year 2011-12
The existing provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contemplate two situations, viz; (a) where the company has only one auditor; and (b) where it has more than one auditor.
