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 : Overview of Form STK-2 under Section 248(2), covering eligibility, ineligible companies, documents, process, filing fee and ROC pr...
Company Law : Step-by-step procedure for redemption of preference shares under Section 55, including CRR, ROC filings, statutory registers and f...
Company Law : Step-by-step procedure for altering the Object Clause under Section 13, filing Form MGT-14, and SEBI LODR compliance for listed co...
Company Law : Article explains the provisions governing appointment of proxies under Section 105 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 19 of the C...
Company Law : Legal Provision and Obligations for a company with respect to Securities issues by Private Placement This Article outlines the leg...
Company Law : ICSI will provide CSEET June 2026 evaluated answer books through its portal from 16 July 2026 without RTI, subject to prescribed t...
Company Law : ICSI declared the CSEET June 2026 results on 15 July 2026. The pass percentage is 67.59%, and e-Result-cum-Marks Statements are av...
Company Law : MCA has cautioned stakeholders against phishing calls, WhatsApp messages, emails, fake websites, and ZIP attachments impersonating...
Company Law : ICSI has urged PESB to recognize Company Secretaries as eligible for Board-level and Functional Director positions in CPSEs. The r...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the Government to amend the law to allow Company Secretaries in Practice to appear before DRTs and DRATs. It argues...
Company Law : NCLAT set aside directions to hand over two properties to the RP, holding Civil Court-recognised possessory rights could not be di...
Company Law : NCLAT dismissed the IRP's appeal, upheld ₹3 lakh remuneration and held reliance on K. Sashidhar was distinguishable in the fee d...
Company Law : Companies and individuals prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013 were not entit...
Company Law : NCLT Mumbai sanctioned a composite scheme under Sections 230–232 and 66 after finding statutory compliance and no objections fro...
Company Law : NCLT Chennai sanctioned the amalgamation scheme after statutory compliance, undertakings on regulatory observations, and absence o...
Company Law : ROC Delhi I directed rectification of Section 92(4) non-compliance within 30 days after examining defective MCA filings relating t...
Company Law : ROC Delhi I directed rectification of Section 137(1) non-compliance within 30 days and recorded zero penalty under the proviso to ...
Company Law : ROC Delhi II imposed maximum penalties under Section 117(2) for five delayed MGT-14 filings and directed rectification within 90 d...
Company Law : ROC Gwalior imposed penalty under Section 203(5) after holding simultaneous appointment of the same person as CFO and Whole-Time D...
Company Law : ROC Gwalior imposed penalty under Section 124(7) after finding non-compliance with IEPF-2 filing requirements under Section 125(2)...
The case addressed failure to appoint a woman director within the statutory timeline. The authority held the company and its officers liable under the residuary penalty provision.
The issue was failure to appoint a CFO after crossing the capital threshold. The takeaway is that delays in KMP appointments attract steep statutory penalties.
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
The order examines prolonged delay in filing mandatory board resolutions approving accounts. It underscores that late compliance, even if rectified later, can attract maximum penalties under the residuary provision.
Failure to disclose occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 12(2). Rejection of a statutory form was ruled insufficient to escape penalty under section 450.
The regulator held that failure to furnish full allottee particulars violates Rule 14(6). Rejection of NDH-4 led to adjudication and penalties under section 450.
The regulator held that non-spending of CSR amounts and failure to transfer unspent funds within timelines violates section 135. Subsequent voluntary payment does not absolve past defaults.
The regulator held that failure to disclose mandatory particulars of allottees violates Rule 12(2) of the Prospectus and Allotment Rules. Even where rectification is promised, the default attracts penalty under section 450.
Explains how director funding, though permitted under company law, can create adverse tax consequences if inconsistently classified or documented.
