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 issue was failure to disclose allottee occupation in PAS-3. The key takeaway is that incomplete allotment details trigger penalties under Section 450.
The issue involved failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalties under Section 450.
The order examines failure to disclose mandatory allottee details in statutory filings. It confirms that such omissions attract penalty under the residuary provision of the Companies Act.
The issue concerned failure to furnish complete allottee details as required under Rule 14(6). The authority held the lapse attracted penalty under Section 450, reinforcing strict compliance in securities allotment filings.
The issue was missing mandatory allottee details in PAS-3 filings. The key takeaway is that incomplete disclosures invite penalties under Section 450.
Incomplete disclosure in the return of allotment was found non-compliant. The company was directed to rectify defaults and pay penalties within the prescribed time.
The order holds that non-filing of MGT-14 for approving financial statements violates Sections 117 and 179, attracting penalty under Section 450 with monetary fines on the company and directors.
The order addresses failure to disclose occupation details of allottees in statutory filings. The authority held this omission to be a violation of securities allotment rules, attracting penalty under the Companies Act.
The issue concerned late filing of Form MGT-14 for a special resolution. The authority held the delay violated Section 117(2) and imposed penalties on the company and its officers.
The notification updates the IEPF Authority’s composition by appointing an RBI Executive Director as an ex-officio member. The key takeaway is the revised institutional representation within the Authority.
