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 issue involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The authority imposed penalties for violation of Section 203. The takeaway is that eligible companies must appoint key managerial personnel without exception.
The issue involved non-compliance with mandatory internal auditor appointment requirements. The authority imposed penalties as the company exceeded the turnover threshold but failed to comply. The takeaway is that audit requirements are strictly enforced.
The ROC imposed penalties on directors for not maintaining the mandatory register of members. The key takeaway is that statutory registers must be maintained at all times. Non-compliance attracts fixed penalties.
The case addresses non-disclosure of directors’ interests in related entities. Authorities imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance with Section 184 disclosure requirements.
The authority penalized directors for entering into non-cash transactions without prior approval through a special resolution. It reinforces that shareholder consent is mandatory for such arrangements under Section 192.
The authority penalized the company for submitting incomplete and inconsistent member data under Rule 14(6). It held that technical issues or pending approvals do not justify defective statutory disclosures, reinforcing strict compliance standards.
The authority penalized the company for failing to file return of allotment under Section 39(4), rejecting the argument of MCA portal issues. The key takeaway is that technical difficulties do not excuse statutory non-compliance.
The Bill replaces imprisonment and fines with fixed civil penalties for procedural defaults. This marks a major shift toward ease of compliance while maintaining accountability.
The authority imposed penalty for failure to file SH-7 after increasing authorised capital. The key takeaway is that statutory filings cannot be skipped even due to technical issues.
Failure to file financial statements and respond to notices resulted in an ex-parte penalty order. The case highlights strict enforcement of compliance and consequences of non-appearance before authorities.
