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...
The analysis clarified that shareholder protection is ensured through ultimate parent consolidation. Hence, intermediate companies can still claim exemption under Section 188. The ruling highlights functional over literal interpretation.
Clear separation of roles prevents conflicts and strengthens accountability. Companies must define responsibilities to ensure effective governance.
The order permits single judicial members to handle procedural and uncontested matters. It ensures faster case disposal while preserving safeguards for contested issues.
The MCA introduced a risk-based eligibility framework allowing more companies to access fast-track mergers. By replacing size criteria with debt thresholds, the reform enables quicker approvals. The ruling highlights a shift toward efficiency and reduced judicial intervention.
The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authority imposed penalties, highlighting strict compliance with Section 12 requirements.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
Holding more than one DIN is treated as a continuing default under law. Even genuine mistakes attract penalties, though early correction may reduce the financial impact.
The framework restricts distribution of gifts at or in connection with general meetings. The ruling highlights that such practices may influence shareholder decisions and are therefore non-compliant.
The scheme provides a last opportunity for defaulting companies to file pending returns and financial statements with reduced penalties. It emphasizes that failure to comply within the window may lead to strict regulatory action, including strike-off.
