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 Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties under Section 450 after a company failed to appoint an internal auditor despite crossing prescribed financial limits. The order held that absence of professional guidnce is not a valid ground for waiver of penalty.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties after a company failed to form Audit and Nomination Committees despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The order held that statutory committee requirements under Sections 177 and 178 are mandatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a company incorrectly reported that consolidated financial statements were not applicable in its AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order held that inaccurate MCA filings attract liability even if the mistake is later admitted and rectified.
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for not appointing a woman director after turnover crossed ₹300 crore. The order clarifies that operational difficulties and delays in identifying candidates cannot excuse statutory non-compliance.
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties under Section 134(8) after finding that the company’s directors failed to provide comments on statutory auditor qualifications. The company and officers were held liable for non-compliance with Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
ROC Uttar Pradesh penalised the company and officers for failing to provide comments on auditor qualifications in the Board’s Report for FY 2019-20. The order held the company in violation of Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar of Companies found that the company remained without a whole-time Company Secretary from 2014 to 2020 in violation of mandatory legal requirements. Penalties were imposed on both the company and directors under Section 203(5).
The Registrar of Companies held that non-filing of financial statements by the due date constituted a contravention of Section 137(1) of the Companies Act. Monetary penalties were imposed on both the company and officers in default.
The Registrar emphasized that statutory e-forms are public records relied upon by regulators and stakeholders. Filing defective or inaccurate forms can therefore attract penalties under Rule 8(3) read with Section 450.
