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)...
Repeated failure to respond to MCA notices resulted in penalties and an ex-parte order. The authority emphasized accountability for statutory filing defaults. The case serves as a cautionary example of the consequences of regulatory non-engagement.
The company was denied reduced penalties as it did not qualify under the definition of a small company. Full penalties were imposed for failure to file financial statements on time. The ruling clarifies the limited applicability of leniency provisions under the Companies Act.
The issue involved failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline. The ROC imposed penalties on both the company and its director. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of statutory filing requirements under the Companies Act.
Failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline resulted in monetary penalties. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 137(3) compliance requirements.
The authority penalized the company for not maintaining a valid registered office address. It held that such failure constitutes a continuing statutory default attracting daily penalties.
The authority penalized the managing director for wrongly declaring CSR as not applicable in financial filings. It held that signatories are responsible for accuracy, even in inadvertent errors.
Failure to maintain a functional registered office led to penalties on the company and its directors. The ruling stresses that companies must always ensure accessibility for official communications.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected the plea as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that prolonged non-compliance cannot be excused.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected this defense as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that temporary hardship does not excuse prolonged non-compliance.
The authority penalized the company for failing to maintain properly numbered minutes. It held that even clerical errors in statutory records attract penalties.
