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 ROC imposed penalties for non-compliance with mandatory woman director requirements. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of Section 149(1) based on turnover criteria.
A prolonged violation of Independent Director requirements led to penalties on both the company and its officer. The ruling underscores consequences of continuous default under corporate law.
The issue involved non-compliance with Section 150(1) due to improper appointment of an independent director. The authority held the company and officer liable, emphasizing mandatory selection from the IICA databank.
The ROC imposed penalties for appointing an Independent Director not listed in the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance with eligibility requirements under Section 150(1).
The ROC penalized the company for not appointing an Independent Director from the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 150(1) of the Companies Act.
The authority penalized the company for delayed filing of MGT-6 beyond the prescribed timeline. It held that even a short delay constitutes a violation under Section 89(7).
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
A massive delay in filing BEN-2 for significant beneficial ownership led to maximum penalties. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts strict penal consequences.
The issue was whether the insolvency application was time-barred. The Tribunal held that balance sheet entries and revival letters extend limitation under law. The key takeaway is that acknowledgment of debt can revive limitation periods.
The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 of the IBC. The ruling underscores the need for concrete proof in alleging fraudulent conduct.
