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)...
Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valuation report from an approved/registered valuer for reduction of share capital.
NCLAT Delhi held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding [CIRP] should be restricted to specific project. Accordingly, held that project wise resolution of the Corporate Debtor needs to be proceeded with as required by law.
The adjudicating authority held that incorrect information in Form AOC-4 XBRL violated Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Penalties were imposed on the director and the certifying CA responsible for the filing.
Despite a 595-day delay in filing financial statements under Section 137, ROC imposed no penalty because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice. The ruling highlights relief available under Section 454(2).
ROC levied a ₹2 lakh penalty on the company and ₹50,000 each on directors for failure to file annual returns. The decision highlights consequences of prolonged non-compliance under Section 92.
ROC Chennai imposed the maximum statutory penalty after a company failed to file financial statements for FY 2014–15 and did not respond to notices. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 137 compliance.
ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for filing the annual return 877 days late under Section 92. The order highlights strict enforcement of statutory filing timelines.
ROC held that although financial statements were filed with a 229-day delay, no penalty was imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 199-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice was issued.
ROC Chennai ruled that despite a 565-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed since the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
