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 issue involved failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline. The ROC imposed penalties on both the company and its director. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of statutory filing requirements under the Companies Act.
Failure to file financial statements within the prescribed timeline resulted in monetary penalties. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 137(3) compliance requirements.
The authority penalized the company for not maintaining a valid registered office address. It held that such failure constitutes a continuing statutory default attracting daily penalties.
The authority penalized the managing director for wrongly declaring CSR as not applicable in financial filings. It held that signatories are responsible for accuracy, even in inadvertent errors.
Failure to maintain a functional registered office led to penalties on the company and its directors. The ruling stresses that companies must always ensure accessibility for official communications.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected the plea as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that prolonged non-compliance cannot be excused.
The company argued that exceptional circumstances prevented compliance. The ROC rejected this defense as defaults continued even after directors were acquitted. The ruling highlights that temporary hardship does not excuse prolonged non-compliance.
The authority penalized the company for failing to maintain properly numbered minutes. It held that even clerical errors in statutory records attract penalties.
The updated framework mandates KYC filing once every three years with strict timelines. Non-compliance leads to DIN deactivation and late fees.
Company held only three Board Meetings in a year, violating statutory norms. Officers were penalized individually for non-compliance with meeting requirements.
