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 Kolkata penalized company directors for exceeding the permissible gap between board meetings under Section 173(1) of the Companies Act, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
SFIO mandates digitally generated summons with QR codes and DINs, enabling online verification to prevent impersonation and misuse.
NCLAT Delhi held that order holding Successful Resolution Applicant as ineligible is wholly erroneous and unsustainable since SRA duly satisfied all the of CIRP Regulations. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and set aside.
The ROC levied penalties after finding that mandatory company details were omitted from MGT-9 and financial statements. The order highlights that even inadvertent filing gaps attract liability under Section 12(8).
ROC imposed significant penalties for failure to file FY 2019–20 financial statements despite extended deadlines. The case highlights strict consequences for prolonged non-compliance under Section 137.
The ROC held that failure to attach FY 2017–18 financial statements could not be penalized due to post-default decriminalization. The case clarifies the impact of statutory amendments on past non-compliances.
ROC penalized the company and directors for conducting a board meeting 79 days late, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 173(1) timelines.
Authorities held that directors violated Section 184 by not filing Form MBP-1 for FY 2023-24. A penalty of ₹1 lakh each was imposed for the disclosure lapse.
MCA imposed penalties for delayed board meetings, citing a 427-day gap as non-compliance. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines appeal rights and consequences for non-payment.
ROC held that financial statements signed without prior Board approval violated Section 134(1), attracting penalties on the company and directors. The key takeaway is that Board authorization is mandatory before signing audited accounts.
