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 involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authority imposed penalties, highlighting strict compliance with Section 12 requirements.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
Holding more than one DIN is treated as a continuing default under law. Even genuine mistakes attract penalties, though early correction may reduce the financial impact.
The framework restricts distribution of gifts at or in connection with general meetings. The ruling highlights that such practices may influence shareholder decisions and are therefore non-compliant.
The scheme provides a last opportunity for defaulting companies to file pending returns and financial statements with reduced penalties. It emphasizes that failure to comply within the window may lead to strict regulatory action, including strike-off.
ROC Mumbai penalized the authorized signatory for incorrect AOC-4 filing where consolidated financial statements were omitted. The ruling reinforces accountability for accuracy in e-form certifications under company law.
The case involved allotment of shares before complete payment and issues with fund traceability. The authority held it as non-compliance and imposed penalties, treating it as a technical breach.
Failure to disclose registered valuer details in explanatory statements led to penalties under Section 450. Each instance was treated as a separate violation, resulting in significant cumulative penalties.
The authority imposed a penalty on the director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4. It held that the signatory is responsible for accuracy of filings, even if the error was inadvertent.
