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 ROC penalized the company for filing incorrect AGM details in AOC-4 despite claiming it was inadvertent. The ruling confirms that even minor errors in statutory filings attract penalties.
The ROC penalized the company for reporting the wrong AGM date in two statutory filings. The ruling confirms that even inadvertent errors in multiple forms attract cumulative penalties.
Clarifies that Form PAS-6 must be filed once ISIN is obtained, even if no shares are in demat form. Highlights the strict applicability under Rule 9A/9B and the importance of compliance.
The authority held that securities cannot be allotted before dematerialising directors’ shareholding. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent rectification.
The authority penalized the company for issuing shares below the valuer-determined price, even though the shortfall was later recovered with interest. Rectification did not absolve the initial violation.
Delay in filing return of allotment under Section 42 resulted in penalties. However, reduced penalties were granted due to startup status under Section 446B.
The authority penalized premature utilization of funds raised through private placement in violation of Section 42(4). The ruling highlights that funds cannot be used before allotment and filing compliance requirements.
The case involved issuing a private placement offer before filing the required resolution. It was held that such non-compliance attracts penalties despite subsequent filings.
Failure to include required disclosures in an explanatory statement led to adjudication and penalty. Reduced penalty applied due to startup status under Section 446B.
The issue involved delayed filing of statutory forms under company law. The authority imposed penalties under the residuary provision, emphasizing strict timelines for compliance.
