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...
NFRA held that weak, undocumented communication between auditors and governance bodies violates auditing standards and governance duties, requiring structured two-way engagement.
ROC Chennai held that failure to include key disclosures in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. Directors were penalised for statutory non-compliance.
ROC Chennai held that omission of allottee occupation in the return of allotment violates Rule 12(2). The lapse attracted penalty under the residual provision of Section 450.
Non-furnishing of full allottee information resulted in rejection of statutory filings and imposition of penalty. The ruling reinforces strict disclosure norms for allotments.
ROC Chennai held that delayed filing of Board resolutions approving financial statements violates Section 117. The company and directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance.
The registrar imposed the maximum penalty for delayed MSME Form I filings. Even belated compliance did not prevent monetary penalties.
Repeated delays in filing MSME returns resulted in penalties reaching the statutory cap. The decision highlights strict enforcement of MSME disclosure timelines and accountability of management.
Delays running into several months in filing MSME-1 resulted in penalties capped at ₹3 lakh. The ruling underscores that extended non-compliance will invite the highest statutory consequences.
MSME-1 filings delayed by over two years attracted the highest statutory penalties. The ruling signals strict enforcement where non-compliance is prolonged and repeated.
The regulator examined failure to hold the minimum number of Board meetings in a calendar year. It held that missing even one required meeting violates statutory governance norms and attracts penalty.
