Company Law : The scheme provides a last opportunity for defaulting companies to file pending returns and financial statements with reduced pena...
Company Law : This guide explains the mandatory conditions, documentation, and procedural steps for converting a partnership into a company. It ...
Company Law : The case examined whether extending redemption timelines amounts to reissuance. The Tribunal held that extensions within statutory...
Company Law : MCA has confirmed that extension of annual filing timelines till 31st December 2025 does not extend statutory deadline for holding...
Company Law : A guide to issuing bonus shares for private companies under the Companies Act, 2013, covering legal frameworks, procedural steps, ...
Company Law : The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a sh...
Company Law : NFRA found major deficiencies in audit documentation and archival practices. The report highlights the need for stronger controls ...
Company Law : The inspection report highlights deficiencies in audit documentation, independence monitoring and compliance with auditing standar...
Company Law : The regulator found that the audit firm lacked an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure firmwide independence policies were pro...
Company Law : NFRAs inspection found gaps in audit documentation, revenue testing, and risk assessment practices, stressing the need for stronge...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : That the period of lockdown ordered by the Central Government and the State Governments including the period as may be extended ei...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highli...
Company Law : ROC Delhi held that failure to regularize an Additional Director at the next AGM violated Section 161(1) of the Companies Act. Sin...
Company Law : The ROC found that the company failed to timely record cessation of an Additional Director whose office had automatically vacated ...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai held that even clerical mistakes in DIR-12 can attract penalty under Section 450 when incorrect information is certifie...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties after a company extended its rights issue offer period following requests from promoter shareholders. Th...
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has vide notification dated 31st March 2011 enhanced the limits for the purpose of disclosure of particulars of employees in Directors report as requisite under Section 217 (2A) read with Companies (Particulars of Employees) Rules, 1975 from the existing limit of Rs. 24 lakh/ year/ Rs. 2 lakh per month to Rs. 60 lakh per year/ Rs. 5 lakh per month and by such notification also covers Government Companies for such disclosures.
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(a) of sub-section(1) of section 642 read with sub-section(1) of section 210A and sub-section (3C) of section 211 of the Companies Act,1956, (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment to paragraph 2 of the notification No.447(E) dated the 28th February, 2011:- “The notification shall come into force for the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to be prepared for the financial year commencing on or after 1.4.2011”.
The notification shall come into force for the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account to be prepared for the financial year commencing on or after 1.4.2011.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 26th March, 2011 G.S.R. 259(E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 642 read with section 610E of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Companies (Central […]
The Central Government, upon being satisfied, through verification of such changed particulars from the enclosed proofs, shall incorporate the said changes and inform the director by way of a letter issued electronically or in any other mode confirming the effect of such change in the electronic database maintained by the Ministry.
Penal actions for defaults committed under the Companies Act, 1956 are either to be taken against an “officer in default” or a “director(s)” or “persons” as provided in the relevant penal provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, defines officer in default and the Directors are also liable for compliance of various provisions of the Act.
the Central Government hereby delegates to the Regional Directors at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Noida and Ahemdabad, the powers and functions of the Central Government under the following provisions of the said Act, namely:- Section 22, Sub-sections (3),(4),(7) and clause (a) of sub-section (8) of section 224, Section 297 (1) Proviso, Section 394-A, Section 400, Second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 439 and sub-section (6) of the said section, Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 496, Clause (a) sub-section (1) of section 508, Sub-section (1) of section 551, Clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 555 and the proviso to clause (a) of subsection (9) of the said section, Provisos to sub-section (1) of section 610, and Section 627.
In exercise of the powers conferred sub-section (1) of section 620 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India erstwhile Ministry of Law and Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Company Affairs) number, SRO 355, dated the 7th January, 1957, namely :- In the said notification, in paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (i) shall be omitted. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Company Law : Companies (Name Availability) Rules, 2011- As per provisions contained in section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956, no company is to be registered with undesirable name. A proposed name is considered to be undesirable if it is identical with or too nearly resembling with: (i) Name of a company in existence; or (ii) A registered trade-mark or a trade mark which is subject of an application for registration, of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
the Central Government hereby delegates to the Registrars of Companies, the powers and functions of that Central Government under the following provisions of the said Act, namely:- Section 21, Section 25, Proviso to Sub-section (1) of section 31, Sub-section (1D) of section 108, Section 572 : Provided that the powers and functions under sub-section (1 D) of section 108 shall be exercised and performed either by the Registrar of Companies of the State in which the registered office of the company is situated, or by the Registrar of Companies of the State in which the transferee ordinarily resides.
