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 authority held that non-filing of annual returns within the prescribed time violates Section 92(4). In the absence of any response, statutory penalties were imposed on both the company and its directors.
Observing prolonged non-compliance with annual return filing requirements, the authority levied penalties up to the statutory maximum. The default was held proved due to absence of any response.
ROC Pune imposed penalties for failure to disclose required details in MGT-14 while issuing shares. Relief under Section 446B was granted due to start-up and small company status.
The Registrar held that non-filing of annual returns violates Section 92(4) of the Companies Act. Monetary penalties were imposed on the company and its officers for continued non-compliance.
The Registrar held that non-filing of e-Form INC-22A constitutes a violation of Rule 25A read with Section 450. Maximum penalties were imposed due to continued default and non-response to notice.
Authorities held that non-attachment of the Board’s Report to annual financial statements violates Section 134. The company and its directors were penalised due to complete non-response to statutory notices.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements for financial statements resulted in penalties under Section 134(8). Directors were held personally liable due to lack of response to the show cause notice.
ROC imposed penalty for failure to file mandatory DIR-3 KYC, leading to DIN deactivation. The order reinforces strict compliance with director KYC requirements to avoid maximum penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that non-filing of Form SH-7 violated Section 64 of the Companies Act. Penalties were imposed on the company and the officer in default despite claims of technical issues.
The authority held that undelivered statutory notices prove breach of registered office requirements. The key takeaway is that prolonged defaults can attract the maximum penalty under company law.
