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...
This guide explains the legal process for striking off companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. It covers eligibility, procedures, ROC powers, and the legal consequences of company dissolution.
ROC Cuttack imposed penalties for failure to print mandatory contact information on company letterheads under Section 12(3)(c). The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory disclosure requirements in official documents.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act after finding that official letterheads omitted mandatory details such as telephone number, email, and website address.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for not appointing a whole-time Chief Financial Officer despite paid-up capital exceeding the statutory threshold under the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after it failed to appoint mandatory independent directors despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance under Section 149(4) attracted maximum penalty under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after special resolutions relating to preferential allotment were filed years beyond the statutory deadline. The authority held that repeated delays under Section 117 attracted maximum penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its Managing Director for omitting disclosure regarding compliance with Secretarial Standards in the Board Report. The authority held that the omission violated Section 118(10) read with Section 134(5)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors after finding that board meeting minute books were not maintained in accordance with Secretarial Standards. The authority held that absence of serial numbering in minute books violated Section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Chennai held that an Additional Director who was not regularised at the AGM could not be treated as an officer in default during the violation period. The ruling highlights the importance of director status while fixing liability under the Companies Act.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
