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...
Failure to attach share transfer details in the annual return resulted in penalties under the residuary provision. The ruling highlights that even minor filing omissions can trigger statutory penalties.
Failure to file the one-time DPT-3 return within the prescribed timeline resulted in penalties under Section 450. The authority held that delayed compliance, even if later rectified, constitutes a violation. The case highlights strict adherence to deposit reporting requirements.
The company admitted that omission of the resolution attachment was unintentional. However, the adjudicating authority still imposed penalties under Section 450. The ruling confirms that intent does not negate statutory compliance obligations.
A delayed filing of a special resolution beyond the statutory deadline resulted in penalties despite claims of bona fide error. The ruling highlights strict compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
Failure to maintain a separate bank account for private placement led to penalties equal to the funds raised. The ruling clarifies strict compliance under Section 42(6) and limits penalty to the lower of ₹2 crore or the amount raised.
Delay in filing Form MGT-14 beyond statutory timelines led to penalties on the company and its directors. The case highlights strict enforcement of Section 117 compliance requirements.
The case involved non-compliance with Section 42 requirements during a private placement. The authority imposed maximum penalties, stressing that designated accounts must meet strict statutory standards.
The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with Section 173(1).
The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting individuals not associated during the default period.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements attracts monetary penalties under Section 172.
