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...
Not only statute, but also common law, has upheld the ‘sanctity’ of a company’s capital. In 1887, in Trevor Vs. Whitworth 12 App Case 409, it was held that a company limited by shares may not purchase its own shares as this would amount to an unauthorized reduction of capital.
Even in the present application Official Liquidator does not state what was the value of these shares as on the date of winding up order was passed or even as on the date of filing of statement of particulars by ex-directors so as to arrive at a conclusion that on account of such non-handing over of shares certificates it has resulted in financial loss to the company (in liquidation) which otherwise would not have occurred.
Companies Bill, 2012, after a very long journey and with many stumble blocks, has finally seen the light of day in Lok Sabha. After much speculation and eagerness on the subject, Lok Sabha finally approved the Bill on the night of 18th December, 2012.
It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bonafide dispute, the court will not order for winding up. The principles in this regard are elucidated in Madhusudan Gordhandas (supra).
CLB has rendered a finding that the application for amendment was allowed for determination of the issues between the parties and for the purpose of framing issues for avoiding multiplicity of litigations.
Record shows that the name of the petitioner was never entered into the register of members as a holder of 52470 shares; his own case is that the share transfer forms were available with him in 1998; he however took no steps to get himself on to the register of members; fault was entirely of the petitioner;
In the present case, as stated hereinabove, admittedly original accused No. 2 was appointed as managing director of original accused No. 1-company and original accused No. 1-company had also the whole-time directors and the manager. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused only as a ordinary director.
So far exercise of jurisdiction vested upon the Company Court under Section 446(2) of the Act is concerned, in my view and also in view of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, it is already settled that this Court have ample power to adjudicate and determine all questions that arises in winding up. Such questions include eviction of trespassers from property of the Company (in liquidation) and the Company Court also by a summary order can direct eviction of a trespassers from the Company property. But Company Court must follow the law of the land in regard to such eviction.
An application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be made in vague terms and it cannot be used as a power to conduct a roving enquiry in these proceedings and to ascertain as to whether there is any act of misfeasance on the part of erstwhile directors.
The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability.
