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 : Learn which companies must file MGT-7 or MGT-7A, when MGT-8 certification is mandatory, and how the Companies (Management and Admi...
CA, CS, CMA : A comprehensive guide covering 175 legal compliances for July 2026 under FEMA, Income Tax, GST, SEBI, Companies Act, Labour Laws, ...
Company Law : Learn how the Companies Act, 2013 regulates managerial remuneration through profit-linked limits, approval requirements, and gover...
Company Law : The article explains that SBI and PNB are statutory bodies created under separate Acts and are therefore not governed by the Compa...
Company Law : The article examines the Hamlin Trust ruling, where the NCLAT held that CFO appointments must satisfy Section 203 eligibility requ...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the MCA to ensure eligible companies comply with Section 203 by appointing Whole-time Company Secretaries. The repr...
Corporate Law : NSO has launched the Annual Survey of Incorporated Services Sector Enterprises (ASISSE) to collect comprehensive economic and oper...
Company Law : ICSI has requested the MCA to grant compliance relaxations following technical disruptions caused by the Data Centre fire. The pro...
Company Law : The MCA has widened CSR eligibility by recognizing subscriptions to Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments as a valid CSR activity...
Company Law : Provisional list of audit firms of listed companies yet to file NFRA-2 for 2023-24. Filing deadline was 30.11.2025; fines apply fo...
Company Law : Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed a winding up petition, holding that a bona fide dispute over liability required adjudication before th...
Company Law : The NCLAT held that CFO nominees must satisfy the eligibility requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act. It set aside th...
Company Law : Where a composite scheme of arrangement satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 an...
Company Law : NCLT Mumbai compounded the offence for failure to hold the AGM within the time prescribed under Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2...
Company Law : The NCLT Ahmedabad refused to condone a 4,215-day delay in filing an appeal for restoration of a struck-off company. The Tribunal ...
Company Law : MCA has allowed companies to file Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 without additional fees until 31 July 2026 due to disruptions caused b...
Company Law : MCA notifies the New Development Bank under Section 2(11)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying it as a body corporate for th...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
We all know about the requirements of forming a Company in India. Incorporation of a Company, as a secretarial practice, may not be a complicated exercise. It is not difficult to get the Director Identification Numbers (DIN) for the proposed directors in the Company to be incorporated, it is not difficult to get Digital Signatures, it is not difficult to find the availability of name with the Registrar of Companies by filing e-form and it may not be difficult to comply with all the requirements and submitting an application to the Registrar of Companies
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue are that the defendant no.1 company was a tenant in property no. 3 Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi. This property was leased by defendant no.5 M/s H.G.Gupta & Sons (HUF) to defendant No. 1 Company for residence of its officers. The company by a resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 27.2.1974 allotted this property to late Lala Hansraj Gupta in his capacity as CEO/Chairman of the company. Late Lala Hansraj Gupta was father of plaintiff no. 2 and defendants no. 2-4 and grandfather of plaintiff no. 1.
The ITAT held that for the computation of MAT, profits disclosed as per the audited accounts should be adopted, provided the accounts are prepared in the prescribed format. If the accounts are not so prepared, the Tax Authority may substitute the amount declared as per the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) with the appropriate amount, regardless of the fact that the accounts are certified as complying with the prescribed format by auditors.
In view of the vastness of the subject, the complications and listening at many of my colleagues, I have decided to present a small brief on Companies to be formed under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, the difference between Private Limited and Public Limited Companies, the applicable law and also the complications. I know the vastness of the subject and I just want to present a small brief as follows:
The assessee earned a capital profit of Rs. 10.38 crores on sale of rights to immovable property. The said profit was directly credited to the capital reserves in the balance sheet instead of being routed through the Profit & loss account. The accounts of the assessee company were duly certified by the auditors and were also adopted in the AGM. The audited accounts were filed with ROC. In the computation of “book profits” for s. 115JB, the said capital profits were not included.
Section 195 of Companies Act, 1956 says that where minutes of the proceedings of any general meeting of the company or of any meeting of its Board of directors or of a committee of the Board have been kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193, then, until the contrary is proved, the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held, and all proceedings thereat to have duly taken place, and in particular, all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid.
Understanding settled principles of law is very very important while presenting or pursuing a case before a Court of law, Board or any Tribunal. Keeping into mind the object of the enactment, the subject, the societal scenario etc. our Courts settled certain principles and the same are to be followed by all Courts or Tribunals unless overruled by the Competent Court or by a larger bench. There is a principle in Criminal Law that an offence should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and an innocent should not be punished. It is an example and the Courts had laid down many principles and certain principles are inherent in the enactment itself.
The transaction involves a global acquisition of a banking business by the Purchaser from the Seller. Consequent thereto, all assets and liabilities in India will be acquired by the Purchaser from the Seller. The acquisition of the assets and liabilities in India will either be through: (a) slump sale process, in which the undertaking as a going concern will be transferred by the Seller to the Purchaser for a lump sum consideration, or (b) through a court approved scheme of reconstruction under section 394 of the Companies Act and section 44 of the Banking Regulation Act under which all the assets and liabilities will be transferred from the Seller to the Purchaser, or (c) individual transfer of assets and liabilities by the Seller to the Purchaser.
A brief about Arbitration Mechanism: In order to reduce the delay in courts in the process of traditional adjudication mechanism, the Alternative Disposal Mechanism (ADR) was mooted. The dispute resolution through Conciliation, Arbitration and Mediation etc., is regarded as alternative mechanism to resolve the disputes between or among the parties in a defined legal relationship.
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.
