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 : This guide explains the complete legal procedure for transferring a registered office from one State to another under the Companie...
Company Law : This guide explains the legal provisions, procedural steps, and filing requirements involved in converting a public company into a...
Company Law : The article explains the legal framework governing debenture issuance under the Companies Act, 2013. It outlines the types of debe...
Company Law : Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 permits companies to raise funds from a select group of investors through private placement....
Company Law : The 2025 amendments significantly expand the scope of fast-track mergers by allowing more categories of companies, including eligi...
Company Law : The MCA has widened CSR eligibility by recognizing subscriptions to Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments as a valid CSR activity...
Company Law : Provisional list of audit firms of listed companies yet to file NFRA-2 for 2023-24. Filing deadline was 30.11.2025; fines apply fo...
Company Law : ICSI recommended restoring public access to basic company master data without mandatory login requirements. The representation sta...
Company Law : The issue concerns eligibility and participation rules for the convocation. ICSI has clarified that members who do not attend will...
Company Law : NFRA introduced guidelines to evaluate audit firms’ compliance and quality control systems. The framework emphasizes governance,...
Company Law : The NCLAT held that winding-up proceedings transferred to the NCLT must satisfy the threshold applicable under the IBC at the time...
Company Law : Resolution Professional (RP) was fully justified in seeking possession through the insolvency process itself, the NCLAT affirmed t...
Company Law : The NCLAT held that unregistered profit-sharing agreements do not create leasehold or occupancy rights in immovable property. The ...
Company Law : While approving the resolution plan, NCLT clarified that exemptions relating to taxes, duties, and statutory compliances must be o...
Company Law : A Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) could not avoid a CoC-approved resolution plan by claiming that the Letter of Intent (LoI)...
Company Law : The MCA has amended the valuation rules to require Registered Valuer Organisations to maintain a minimum paid-up capital of ₹25 ...
Company Law : The Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form A...
Company Law : MCA amends Schedule VII of the Companies Act to include subscription to zero coupon zero principal instruments on Social Stock Exc...
Company Law : MCA has amended the CSR Rules to recognize zero coupon zero principal instruments issued by Social Stock Exchange-listed NPOs. The...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the ...
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.
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.
