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.
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 : The issue is ambiguity in filing authority during liquidation. ICSI has requested clarity to enable liquidators to maintain statut...
Company Law : The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a sh...
Income Tax : In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order o...
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 : Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching t...
Company Law : The case examined whether Tribunal approval was required for extending preference share redemption. It was held that such extensio...
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 law regulates appointment, limits, and payment of managerial remuneration through Sections 196, 197, and Schedule V. The key takeaway is that remuneration must align with profits, approvals, and compliance requirements.
Director removal requires complete adherence to Section 169 procedures. Any procedural lapse can render the removal invalid and expose the company to litigation.
The company failed to form mandatory board committees for over four years. The authority held that each non-compliance attracts separate penalties.
The case involved incorrect filing of director designation in statutory records. The authority held that prolonged failure to rectify the error constituted a continuing default, attracting maximum penalty.
The case involved failure to file mandatory Form MR-1 for appointment of a Whole-Time Director. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance constituted a continuing default and imposed maximum penalties under Section 450.
The company delayed appointment of independent directors despite crossing the threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts maximum penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue involved non-compliance with statutory requirements for maintaining board meeting minutes. The authority held that procedural lapses still attract penalties under Section 118.
The authority dropped penalty proceedings after finding that the company had already shifted its registered office and the error was unintentional. Timely compliance and lack of mala fide intent proved crucial.
CCFS-2026 allows companies to clear pending filings at reduced costs. The key takeaway is penalty relief and a final chance to regularize compliance.
Legal Analysis and Narrative Brief: Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. P.K. Prathapan and Others (Supreme Court of India) on 13th September, 2004 1. Part I: The Narrative Accounts In the sophisticated theater of corporate litigation, the technicalities of share allotments and board resolutions often serve as a veil for deeply personal […]
