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 ROC held that selecting incorrect options in statutory filings amounts to a completed contravention. Later requests to mark the form defective do not remove penalty liability.
The order clarifies that filing an incorrect statutory e-form attracts penalties even if the mistake is later admitted and rectified. Administrative correction does not erase the original contravention under the Companies Act.
The adjudication confirms that incorrect classification of promoter and public shareholding in statutory filings attracts penalties. Even inadvertent errors in Form MGT-7 trigger liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that non-disclosure of auditor-reported violations in the Directors’ Report breached Section 134(3)(f). The ruling underscores that transparency in statutory reporting is mandatory, not optional.
The adjudicating authority ruled that filing statutory e-forms with incorrect particulars constitutes a completed violation. Subsequent requests to mark forms defective do not erase penalty liability.
An incorrect AGM date disclosed in an annual return led to penal action. The ruling clarifies that accuracy in statutory disclosures is mandatory and strictly enforced.
The adjudicating authority held that non-disclosure of auditor-reported non-compliances violates statutory reporting duties. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and defaulting directors.
Failure to explain auditor-noted violations of Nidhi Rules resulted in penalties on the company and directors. The order reinforces strict disclosure duties under company law.
The order confirms that filing incorrect financial statements triggers penalties even if errors are later admitted and rectified. Post-filing administrative correction does not erase liability under the Companies Act.
Authorities held that failure to display a complete registered office address violated Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act. The case reinforces that even procedural lapses can attract the maximum statutory penalty if left unrectified.
