The Companies Act 2013 is a crucial legislation in India governing the incorporation, functioning, and management of companies. Learn about the key provisions, compliance requirements, and legal framework under the Companies Act 2013.
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 : The Companies Act, 2013 requires most companies to hold four Board Meetings annually, while OPCs, Small Companies, and Dormant Com...
Company Law : This guide provides a complete AGM compliance tracker covering pre-AGM, AGM-day, post-AGM, and IEPF obligations under the Companie...
Company Law : MCA has revised the Director KYC framework, requiring DIR-3 KYC (Web) only once every three financial years. The changes reduce co...
Company Law : Learn how the Companies Act, 2013 regulates managerial remuneration through profit-linked limits, approval requirements, and gover...
Company Law : MCA has cautioned stakeholders against phishing calls, WhatsApp messages, emails, fake websites, and ZIP attachments impersonating...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the Government to amend the law to allow Company Secretaries in Practice to appear before DRTs and DRATs. It argues...
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 : Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed a winding up petition, holding that a bona fide dispute over liability required adjudication before th...
Company Law : NCLT retained the freeze on assets citing serious SFIO findings but ordered defreezing of the salary account and family members' a...
Corporate Law : The Court ruled that, without a transfer application and parallel insolvency proceedings, shifting a winding-up case to NCLT was u...
Company Law : NCLT permitted stakeholder meetings after accepting clarifications on forfeited warrants, disclosures, and scheme compliance under...
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 : 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...
This case explains why related party transactions require heightened audit scrutiny under SA-550. The key takeaway is that influence and control, not just legal structure, determine audit risk and disclosure obligations.
The Registrar imposed penalties after finding a nearly six-year delay in appointing a mandatory whole-time Company Secretary once capital thresholds were crossed.
The adjudication confirms that non-appointment of a secretarial auditor is a serious compliance breach. COVID-related explanations did not absolve liability under company law.
Kerala High Court held that Competition Commission of India [CCI] possess jurisdiction for investigating anti-competitive practices in telecommunication sector inspite of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 regulations.
Penalties were imposed after it was found that share subscription funds were used without valid allotment. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with private placement rules.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to mention CIN and contact details on official letterheads. The key takeaway is that statutory disclosures are mandatory regardless of public data availability.
The order reiterates that disclosure of CIN and contact details on official publications is compulsory and non-negotiable under company law.
The authority held that omission of CIN, email, and contact number on official documents violates section 12(3)(c). Even technical disclosure lapses attract penalties under section 12(8).
ROC held that failure to number pages in statutory minutes books violates Section 118. Even clerical lapses can invite penalties on both the company and its directors.
The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
