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...
Delays running into several months in filing MSME-1 resulted in penalties capped at ₹3 lakh. The ruling underscores that extended non-compliance will invite the highest statutory consequences.
MSME-1 filings delayed by over two years attracted the highest statutory penalties. The ruling signals strict enforcement where non-compliance is prolonged and repeated.
The regulator examined failure to hold the minimum number of Board meetings in a calendar year. It held that missing even one required meeting violates statutory governance norms and attracts penalty.
The authority examined non-filing of charge registration for vehicle loans. It held that registration under company law is mandatory, attracting personal penalties on directors for default.
The order holds that failure to disclose mandatory allottee particulars violates securities allotment rules. Rejection of a regulatory form does not bar imposition of penalty under the Companies Act.
Regulatory correspondence returned undelivered led to action under registered office compliance rules. The ruling underscores that companies must maintain a functional address to receive statutory communications.
The authority held that failure to disclose related party contracts and justifications in the Board’s Report violates statutory transparency norms. A personal monetary penalty was imposed on the responsible director.
Non-compliance with mandatory board composition norms led to heavy penalties. Both the company and the officer were held liable under company law.
The Registrar found that statutory notices and court decrees were returned undelivered, proving non-maintenance of the registered office. The key takeaway is that companies and directors face the maximum penalty for such defaults.
A delay of 13 days in filing Form MGT-15 attracted penalties on both the company and key managerial personnel. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of AGM compliance timelines.
