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...
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
The order examines prolonged delay in filing mandatory board resolutions approving accounts. It underscores that late compliance, even if rectified later, can attract maximum penalties under the residuary provision.
Failure to disclose occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 12(2). Rejection of a statutory form was ruled insufficient to escape penalty under section 450.
The regulator held that failure to furnish full allottee particulars violates Rule 14(6). Rejection of NDH-4 led to adjudication and penalties under section 450.
The regulator held that non-spending of CSR amounts and failure to transfer unspent funds within timelines violates section 135. Subsequent voluntary payment does not absolve past defaults.
The regulator held that failure to disclose mandatory particulars of allottees violates Rule 12(2) of the Prospectus and Allotment Rules. Even where rectification is promised, the default attracts penalty under section 450.
Explains how director funding, though permitted under company law, can create adverse tax consequences if inconsistently classified or documented.
The regulator held that failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within statutory timelines violates sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment does not erase the default, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
Failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within timelines was held to violate sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment did not absolve liability, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
