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...
The ROC imposed penalties for non-compliance with mandatory woman director requirements. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of Section 149(1) based on turnover criteria.
A prolonged violation of Independent Director requirements led to penalties on both the company and its officer. The ruling underscores consequences of continuous default under corporate law.
The issue involved non-compliance with Section 150(1) due to improper appointment of an independent director. The authority held the company and officer liable, emphasizing mandatory selection from the IICA databank.
The ROC imposed penalties for appointing an Independent Director not listed in the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance with eligibility requirements under Section 150(1).
The ROC penalized the company for not appointing an Independent Director from the IICA databank. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 150(1) of the Companies Act.
The authority penalized the company for delayed filing of MGT-6 beyond the prescribed timeline. It held that even a short delay constitutes a violation under Section 89(7).
The authority penalized the company for failing to file MGT-14 within 30 days of passing a resolution. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties under Section 117(2).
A massive delay in filing BEN-2 for significant beneficial ownership led to maximum penalties. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance attracts strict penal consequences.
The ROC held that no penalty is leviable as the company filed its annual return within 30 days of the notice. The ruling highlights that timely compliance can nullify penal consequences under the Companies Act.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to follow mandatory secretarial standards in company meetings. The ruling highlights strict enforcement of compliance obligations under the Companies Act.
