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 ROC held that non-appointment of a mandatory Company Secretary within the prescribed timeline constitutes a serious compliance breach. Even delayed appointment does not cure the violation, resulting in substantial penalties on both company and directors.
The case deals with failure to maintain statutory disclosure records under Section 184. The authority imposed penalties on all directors, emphasizing strict compliance and record-keeping obligations.
The ROC held that delayed filing of Form MGT-14 constitutes a clear violation of Section 117. Even if eventually filed, non-compliance within the prescribed timeline attracts monetary penalties on both company and officers.
The case addresses delayed filing of return of allotment beyond the mandated 15 days under Section 42(8). The authority imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance requirements for private placements.
The authority penalized the company for filing incorrect AGM details in Form AOC-4 XBRL. It held that even clerical errors violate statutory requirements. The ruling stresses accuracy in corporate filings.
The authority penalized the company for not identifying SBOs despite clear evidence of control and influence. It held that such identification is mandatory under Section 90. The ruling reinforces transparency in ownership structures.
The authority penalized the company for not appointing a Secretarial Auditor despite meeting statutory thresholds. It held that compliance under Section 204 is mandatory. The ruling reinforces strict corporate governance obligations.
The authority penalized the company for using funds before allotment and filing statutory returns. It held that Section 42(4) strictly prohibits such utilization. The ruling reinforces compliance in private placements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to transfer unspent CSR funds within the statutory deadline. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties. The ruling emphasizes strict timelines under CSR provisions.
The issue involved failure to disclose Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such omission violates Section 158 and attracts penalty.
