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 : The process of striking off a private limited company refers to the removal of a company’s name from the Register of Compani...
Company Law : Appointment of other officer such as CTO, COO, and CMO as Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) under Companies Act, 2013 – Key Con...
Company Law : Private Limited Companies in India ought to observe annual filing necessities to keep transparency and prison standing. This artic...
Company Law : Cost audit and cost records serve as essential tools for achieving these objectives, enabling companies to monitor, control, an...
Company Law : Understand CSR in India, its applicability, permitted activities, non-permitted contributions, penalties for non-compliance, and r...
Company Law : The government addresses SFIO cases, IBC amendments, CSR compliance, and ESG reporting norms for publicly traded companies....
Company Law : Understand MCA V3 user types, registration, and login. Learn how to update profiles and resolve common issues....
Company Law : Find the provisional list of audit firms of listed companies that haven't filed NFRA-2 forms for the reporting period 2023-24. Upd...
Company Law : The Companies Act 2013 mandates corporate governance, transparency, and CSR reporting. Key provisions include financial disclosure...
Company Law : Understand the compliance regime for private limited companies in India, including business closure timelines and government measu...
Company Law : When the corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding power obligation, appellant subsequently cut off the electrical service. O...
Company Law : The plain reading of the above provisions of Section 60(5)(c) clearly indicates that the NCLT is empowered to adjudicate any quest...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi quashes CIRP against Alcuris Healthcare, ruling profit-sharing disputes do not constitute operational debt under IBC. ...
Company Law : NCLAT dismisses appeals in Saturn Ventures case, upholding RP’s findings on asset ownership and rejecting fraudulent transaction...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that Liquidator is jurisdictionally empowered to proceed with private sale of Corporate Debtor by adopting Swiss ...
Company Law : The appeal by Maptech Poly Products Pvt Ltd against a penalty for non-maintenance of its registered office was dismissed by the Re...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels' appeal led to a penalty reduction for non-compliance with Section 149(3) of the Companies Act. The company pai...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels appealed against CSR non-compliance penalties. The Regional Director reduced the fine after reviewing submissio...
Company Law : Konoria Plaschem faced penalties for failing to appoint an internal auditor from 2014-2020. The fine was reduced on appeal. Read t...
Company Law : Water & Sanitation (India) for Urban Poor failed to hold board meetings from 2011-2019, leading to penalties. The fine was later r...
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.
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.
