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 ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for holding two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even though the second DIN was obtained inadvertently and later surrendered, the continuing default for 1227 days attracted adjudication and monetary penalty.
The piece outlines statutory conditions and procedural steps governing ESOPs in India. The key takeaway is that ESOP flexibility exists only with strict legal compliance.
The authority held that failure to attach a valuation report with Form PAS-3 violates Rule 12(7) of the PAS Rules. In the absence of a specific penalty, the residuary provision under Section 450 was applied, resulting in maximum penalties.
Failure to attach a valuation report with Form PAS-3 was held to breach Rule 12(7). Since continuing penalties were already imposed earlier, only the minimum penalty was levied in this instance.
The order holds that delayed dematerialisation of securities violates Section 29(1A) and Rule 9A. The company and directors were penalised under the residuary provision for prolonged non-compliance.
Failure to file INC-20A within 180 days resulted in penalties on both the company and its directors. The order highlights strict enforcement of commencement of business provisions.
The authority held directors personally liable for a prolonged default in commencement compliance. The case highlights that continuing defaults can result in maximum statutory penalties.
The order holds that an additional director cannot continue beyond the statutory cut-off date without shareholder approval. Allowing delayed regularisation attracted penalties under Section 172.
Explains the most common entry-stage errors foreign investors make in India and how correct structuring and compliance can prevent regulatory setbacks.
Authorities imposed mandatory penalties after directors failed to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report, breaching statutory disclosure obligations.
