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...
Failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 14(6). The ROC imposed penalties under section 450, underscoring strict disclosure requirements.
Non-filing of MGT-15 for two financial years was held to violate section 121. Officers were penalised despite the company being under liquidation.
ROC Chennai held that listed companies must appoint an internal auditor under Section 138. Non-compliance over multiple years resulted in penalties on directors.
ROC Chennai held that non-filing of the secretarial audit report violates Section 204. Directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance across multiple years.
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.
