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 levied penalties after finding that mandatory company details were omitted from MGT-9 and financial statements. The order highlights that even inadvertent filing gaps attract liability under Section 12(8).
ROC imposed significant penalties for failure to file FY 2019–20 financial statements despite extended deadlines. The case highlights strict consequences for prolonged non-compliance under Section 137.
The ROC held that failure to attach FY 2017–18 financial statements could not be penalized due to post-default decriminalization. The case clarifies the impact of statutory amendments on past non-compliances.
ROC penalized the company and directors for conducting a board meeting 79 days late, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 173(1) timelines.
Authorities held that directors violated Section 184 by not filing Form MBP-1 for FY 2023-24. A penalty of ₹1 lakh each was imposed for the disclosure lapse.
MCA imposed penalties for delayed board meetings, citing a 427-day gap as non-compliance. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines appeal rights and consequences for non-payment.
ROC held that financial statements signed without prior Board approval violated Section 134(1), attracting penalties on the company and directors. The key takeaway is that Board authorization is mandatory before signing audited accounts.
ROC Bengaluru imposed penalties for a 403-day delay in issuing share certificates, citing violation of Section 56. The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines the appeal process.
The adjudicating authority held that failing to fill the company secretary vacancy for over three years violated Section 203(5). Full penalties were imposed as the company was not eligible for reduced relief.
The ROC imposed penalties after finding that CSR funds meant for ongoing projects were wrongly spent and not transferred to Schedule VII funds. The key takeaway is that improper use of unspent CSR amounts triggers liability under Section 135(5).
