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 Companies Act, 2013 and related rules now require most public and private companies to issue and transfer securities only in d...
Company Law : The Companies Law Amendment Bill, 2026 proposes major reforms in corporate governance, compliance, and digital regulation. This ar...
Company Law : This guide explains the complete legal procedure for shifting a company’s registered office within the same state but under a di...
Company Law : Section 56 of Companies Act, 2013 requires execution of a proper instrument of transfer for transfer of interest of a member in a ...
Corporate Law : The article explains how digital adjudication systems, virtual hearings, and online compliance platforms are reshaping India’s c...
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 : ICSI recommended restoring public access to basic company master data without mandatory login requirements. The representation sta...
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 Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to...
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 : ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Se...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Secti...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai-II imposed penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly mentioned the AGM date in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order h...
The company relied on old resolutions for ongoing related party transactions. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, imposing penalties for non-compliance.
The company continued related party transactions based on old approvals. The authority held that fresh approvals are mandatory, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
The issue involved non-compliance with approval requirements for related party transactions. The authority held that absence of Board resolution violates Section 188. The key takeaway is that proper approvals are mandatory for such transactions.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The authority imposed penalties for violation of Section 203. The takeaway is that eligible companies must appoint key managerial personnel without exception.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory internal auditor appointment requirements. The authority imposed penalties as the company exceeded the turnover threshold but failed to comply. The takeaway is that audit requirements are strictly enforced.
The ROC imposed penalties on directors for not maintaining the mandatory register of members. The key takeaway is that statutory registers must be maintained at all times. Non-compliance attracts fixed penalties.
The case addresses non-disclosure of directors’ interests in related entities. Authorities imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 184 disclosure requirements.
The authority penalized directors for entering into non-cash transactions without prior approval through a special resolution. It reinforces that shareholder consent is mandatory for such arrangements under Section 192.
The authority penalized the company for submitting incomplete and inconsistent member data under Rule 14(6). It held that technical issues or pending approvals do not justify defective statutory disclosures, reinforcing strict compliance standards.
The authority penalized the company for failing to file return of allotment under Section 39(4), rejecting the argument of MCA portal issues. The key takeaway is that technical difficulties do not excuse statutory non-compliance.
