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 authority held that non-numbering of minutes violates Secretarial Standard-1. The key takeaway is that statutory minute-keeping requirements must be strictly followed.
This analysis explains how majority control can oppress minority shareholders and how mismanagement harms companies. The key takeaway is that law intervenes only when conduct is unfair, continuous, and prejudicial.
The appellate tribunal held that substituting the investigating agency did not amount to a review or recall. Since the original investigation order remained intact, the appeal was dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that issues relating to debt and fraud is within the jurisdiction of NCLT to be determined in accordance with IBC. Resultantly, the power of a civil court to entertain the present suit is, therefore, statutorily barred. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected.
Contempt Petition was not maintainable, as the NCLT had independent and effective jurisdiction under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 to punish for contempt of its own orders, including those passed under the IBC.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary order which set aside eviction order is not sustainable in law. Court also held that using AI tool as aid for filing submission without verifying its content is not acceptable.
This explains why genuine shareholders face rejection in IEPF claims due to procedural lapses. The key takeaway is that compliance errors, not ineligibility, cause most failures.
A company was penalised for filing an incomplete and incorrect INC-22 for change of registered office. Startup status helped secure a reduced penalty under Section 446B.
Errors and omissions in the annual return were held to violate Section 92. Even timely filing does not cure defective disclosures, though penalties were reduced for a startup.
The adjudicating authority held that utilisation of application money before filing PAS-3 violates Section 42. Even procedural deviations in private placement can trigger substantial penalties.
