The Companies Act is a legislation that governs the formation, functioning, and management of companies. Explore the key provisions, compliance requirements, and legal framework under the Companies Act.
Company Law : The issue revolves around the complexities in transferring shares without nomination. The framework allows direct vesting of share...
Company Law : The issue examines whether delayed adjustment of advances automatically triggers deposit classification. The key takeaway is that ...
Company Law : The procedure outlines steps for altering the Memorandum of Association, including board approval, shareholder resolution, and reg...
Company Law : The Bill decriminalises minor offences by converting them into civil penalties, reducing fear of prosecution for procedural lapses...
Company Law : The amendment merges 11 forms into two streamlined frameworks to reduce compliance burden. The key takeaway is faster, simpler com...
Company Law : NFRA introduced guidelines to evaluate audit firms’ compliance and quality control systems. The framework emphasizes governance,...
Company Law : ICSI highlights delays in marking defective forms by RoCs under CCFS 2026. It urges MCA to mandate time-bound processing or allow ...
Company Law : The issue is ambiguity in filing authority during liquidation. ICSI has requested clarity to enable liquidators to maintain statut...
Company Law : The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a sh...
Company Law : The MCA introduced a streamlined process for updating registered email IDs of companies and LLPs. The update ensures seamless rece...
Company Law : Legal Analysis and Narrative Brief: Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. P.K. Prathapan and Others (Supreme Cou...
Company Law : The case examined whether Tribunal approval was required for extending preference share redemption. It was held that such extensio...
Company Law : The Tribunal held that allegations of siphoning ₹30 lakh were not supported by any evidence tracing funds to the respondent. Mer...
Company Law : The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire cl...
Company Law : Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valua...
Corporate Law : The order permits single judicial members to handle procedural and uncontested matters. It ensures faster case disposal while pres...
Company Law : A director was penalized for holding two DINs in violation of statutory provisions. The key takeaway is that even inadvertent non-...
Company Law : The company failed to conduct the required number of board meetings and exceeded statutory time gaps. The key takeaway is that str...
Company Law : Filing incorrect details in statutory forms attracts penalties even if later corrected. The key takeaway is that rectification doe...
Company Law : The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authorit...
With the experience of looking at the litigation before the Company Law Board and the Company Court, with the privilege of looking at various judgments under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 while writing a commentary on Company Law and with what I have heard from few shareholders when they have grievance against the Company or the majority, I would like to express my views on the dispute resolution mechanism under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.
Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with “oppression” and “mismanagement” by the majority in a Company against the Minority Shareholders. How to construe “minority” for the purpose of section 397/398 is dealtwith under section 399 which prescribes qualification to approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Act. What amounts to “oppression” and is oppression completely different from “mismanagement” as dealwith under section 398; is another interesting issue to look into.
S. 115JB(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act in short) provides for payment of a minimum alternate tax in case the Income-tax computed on the total income falls short of 10% of the book profits of the company. For ensuring that companies do not adopt accounting practices to render the provision otiose, Ss.(2) requires the profit and loss account of companies to be prepared as per Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956. Proviso to this sub-section further ensures that the accounting policies, accounting standards and the method and rates of depreciation adopted for the purposes of S. 210 of the Companies Act, are not varied while computing ‘book profit’ u/s.115JB.
Multinational corporations have been carrying on business in India through private limited companies (‘Indian Companies’) set up by them under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’). Often, such private limited companies are not subsidiaries of the principal holding company (which has public shareholding), but are step-down subsidiaries of subsidiary companies of such principal holding companies.
A man is known by the company he keeps. But with the implementation of the Companies Bill 2009, a single person will constitute a Company, under the One Person Company (OPC) concept.As a structure for professionals, individual entrepreneurs, SMES and NGOs – the proposed Section 171 extends to Section 25 Companies as well – this is a godsend, as it insulates the shareholders personal assets from liability. But one wonders whether this Bill is the right platform or the timing is opportune. There have been too many writings on the Bill and its various dimensions. It is a critical piece of reform, which will be resisted and opposed by many.
The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (‘the LLP Act’) was brought into force with effect from 31st March 2009 to permit formation of Limited Liability Partnerships (‘LLPs’) in India. The main focus of the LLP Act is to permit a partnership structure and at the same time, limit the liability of partners which was heretofore unlimited under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (‘the Partnership Act’). This article discusses briefly the limitation of liability of partners under the LLP Act as compared to the limitation of liability of a shareholder of a limited company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Companies Act’) and the manner in which such liabilities are limited under the LLP Act.
Reports have been published in a section of media indicating Shri R.Vasudevan as “Acting Chairman, Company Law Board” or “Company Law Board Chief”. This is factually incorrect as he was never the Acting Chairman of the Company Law Board at any point of time after superannuation of Shri S.Balasubramanian, Chairman, Company Law Board on 2.11.2009. In fact, Shri R.Vasudevan happened to be the junior most Member of the Company Law Board, who joined the Board only on 5.8.2009.
During the last one week’s investigation into the bribery case against Company Law Board (CLB) member R Vasudevan, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has purportedly found that Vasudevan had made enough ill-gotten money. In fresh raids, the agency has recovered cash, FDRs and jewellery worth nearly Rs 1 crore from his residence.
Investigation under Section 235:-Investigation is the act of determining whether criminal matters such as employee theft, securities fraud (including falsification of financial statements), identity theft, and insurance fraud have occurred.
100% Asset Cover: To align the Listing Agreement with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the amended Listing Agreement requires issuers to maintain 100% asset cover sufficient to discharge the principal amount at all times for the debt securities issued. Further, to provide more information to investors, the periodic disclosures to the stock exchange shall now require disclosure of the extent and nature of security created and maintained.
