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...
To file a petition u/s 397, 398 of the Act, one has to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under the above provision of law. Unless and until the above criterion is fulfilled, the petition is not maintainable. The persons who can qualify to file the petition are (i) in case the company is having a share capital, not less than 100 members; or (ii) not less than 1/10th of the total number of its members, whichever is less.
Under section 399 of the Act, statute has made it clear that 10 per cent shareholding is requisite qualification to invoke jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 of the Act. If the joint shareholding of first petitioner has become half, then certainly this petition is short of the requisite qualification that is required under section 399 of the Act.
This is an application for the winding up of Tantia Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter the company). It is made by a Malaysian company by the name of Road Builder (M) Sdn Bhd, (hereinafter the petitioning creditor). These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed, on 15th December, 2007, to sell to the company plant, machinery and vehicles at a total consideration of Rs. 2,75,73,614.41/-.
There is no conflict between the statutory relief of winding up and of the contractual right to have disputes settled by arbitration. Once a bona fide defence is shown to exist, arbitration will be the efficacious and proper remedy. Where, however, the defence is mala fide and a moonshine, arbitrable disputes would not exist and the company judge would have the power to pass appropriate orders Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Co. (supra). Existence of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of this court to either entertain or to admit a petition for winding up.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has implemented MCA21 e-Governance Project. The Project is aimed at enhancing the service level efficiencies and bringing about certainty and speed in the operations of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, particularly with regard to the delivery of all the Registry related services rendered by Registrar of Companies as defined under the Companies Act, 1956.
XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language) is another advanced reporting language of the XML family. XBRL ensures that the figures reported to government authorities and other organisation does not remain dormant piece of printed papers but these figures can be used in data analysis.
The crux of the controversy is whether the appellant which is a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is entitled to have two kinds of memberships as aforesaid. The only difference in the rights of the two kinds of members is that while the Member Exporters have a right to elect and to be elected as office bearers of the appellant, the Registered Exporters have no such right.
I am directed to invite a reference to Ministry’s circular No. 19 and 20 of 2011 issued on 02.05.2011 laying down certain procedure to regulate cases wherein filing of conflicting returns with regard to appointment of Directors or change of Director/Directors was laid down. In the light of some specific cases wherein it appears that either there was lack of consent of the removed/changed director or due process of Law were not followed, it has been decided to supercede the circulars.
In the present case the petitioner No. l was removed as director and this Bench presumes that the convening and holding of general meeting in which he was removed is legal and valid. So far as para 11.3 of the reliefs is concerned that the R1-company be directed to be operated only with the joint signature of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is concerned a similar relief is sought by the applicants in the main petition at para 9.3. Therefore, pending adjudication of main petition, I do not consider it to grant the reliefs at the interim stage. So far as reliefs at para 11.4 is concerned I am not inclined to grant the stay in conducting the shareholders and Board of directors meetings which are to be conducted by the company in accordance with the law or the company may thinks fit to call the meetings in its best interest.
The government today said it is hopeful of taking up the new Companies Bill for consideration and passage in the upcoming Budget Session of Parliament. Standing Committee had their first meting on January 24. I expect them to give (clearance) as early as possible so that I can present the Bill in the next session of Parliament and get it passed
