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)...
ROC held that failure to number pages in statutory minutes books violates Section 118. Even clerical lapses can invite penalties on both the company and its directors.
The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
The authority held that not consecutively numbering minutes books violates section 118(1) of the Companies Act. Even procedural lapses in corporate records can lead to fixed penalties on both the company and directors.
ROC held that non-appointment of a small shareholders’ director violates Section 151. The company and its directors were penalised at the statutory maximum under Section 172 for prolonged default.
The order reinforces that persistent non-filing of financial statements invites severe monetary consequences for both companies and directors.
ROC imposed the highest permissible penalty after finding prolonged failure to file AOC-4. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of Section 137(3) and personal accountability of directors.
The authority held that non-filing of financial statements under section 137 attracts strict penalties. Prolonged default justified imposition of the maximum amount prescribed by law.
The ruling reiterates that prolonged filing defaults invite monetary penalties on both the company and officers in default.
ROC held that failure to file financial statements for consecutive years violates Section 137, warranting statutory penalties on both the company and its directors.
An inspection under section 206(5) confirmed long-standing filing failures, resulting in statutory penalties on the company and officers in default.
