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 Registrar of Companies, Kolkata passed an adjudication order under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, imposing penalties for violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 read with Section 450 of the Act. The case arose from the filing of an e-Form MGT-7A containing incorrect particulars, where the […]
Stressing that the MCA registry is a public and relied-upon record, the authority imposed penalties for inaccurate disclosures. The ruling underscores strict compliance expectations for statutory e-filings.
The authority held that filing an e-form with wrong particulars constitutes a completed contravention. Later requests to mark the form as defective do not eliminate penalty liability.
An adjudication order confirms penalties for violation of statutory annual return requirements under the Companies Act. The ruling highlights that directors are personally liable when compliance defaults continue unrectified.
An adjudication order confirms personal penalties on officers in default for breach of Section 92 filing obligations. The ruling highlights that directors remain accountable when statutory filings are ignored.
The Registrar imposed penalties for failure to file Form MGT-7 within the prescribed time. The order reiterates strict compliance with annual return filing requirements despite concessional treatment for eligible entities.
The order holds that failure to issue share certificates within the prescribed two-month period attracts penalties under Section 56(6). Subsequent rectification does not erase the original default.
ROC held that filing an AOC-4 with an incorrect AGM date constitutes a completed default. Subsequent rectification or marking the form as defective does not erase penalty liability.
ROC held that correcting an e-form later does not nullify the original violation. Companies and signatories remain liable for filing inaccurate statutory information.
This case explains that errors in mandatory e-forms, including incorrect AGM details, amount to statutory non-compliance. Both the company and the authorised signatory were penalised under Section 450.
