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...
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.
The authority examined non-filing of charge registration for vehicle loans. It held that registration under company law is mandatory, attracting personal penalties on directors for default.
The order holds that failure to disclose mandatory allottee particulars violates securities allotment rules. Rejection of a regulatory form does not bar imposition of penalty under the Companies Act.
Regulatory correspondence returned undelivered led to action under registered office compliance rules. The ruling underscores that companies must maintain a functional address to receive statutory communications.
The authority held that failure to disclose related party contracts and justifications in the Board’s Report violates statutory transparency norms. A personal monetary penalty was imposed on the responsible director.
Non-compliance with mandatory board composition norms led to heavy penalties. Both the company and the officer were held liable under company law.
The Registrar found that statutory notices and court decrees were returned undelivered, proving non-maintenance of the registered office. The key takeaway is that companies and directors face the maximum penalty for such defaults.
