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...
Despite a 595-day delay in filing financial statements under Section 137, ROC imposed no penalty because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice. The ruling highlights relief available under Section 454(2).
ROC levied a ₹2 lakh penalty on the company and ₹50,000 each on directors for failure to file annual returns. The decision highlights consequences of prolonged non-compliance under Section 92.
ROC Chennai imposed the maximum statutory penalty after a company failed to file financial statements for FY 2014–15 and did not respond to notices. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 137 compliance.
ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for filing the annual return 877 days late under Section 92. The order highlights strict enforcement of statutory filing timelines.
ROC held that although financial statements were filed with a 229-day delay, no penalty was imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 199-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice was issued.
ROC Chennai ruled that despite a 565-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed since the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 930-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company filed the return before the adjudication notice was issued.
The ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for failing to file a board resolution within 30 days as required under Section 117. Although the form was filed after 125 days, reduced penalties were granted because the company qualified as a Small Company.
ROC Chennai held that although the annual return was filed 95 days late, no penalty was imposed because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice, attracting relief under Section 454(2).
