Stay informed with the latest in tax and compliance
Share this page:
Due Date
Form / Return
Department
Description
Days Left
20 Apr 2026
GSTR-5A
Mar, 26
GST
Summary of outward taxable supplies and tax payable by a person supplying OIDAR services
2d
20 Apr 2026
GSTR-3B
Mar, 26
GST
Summary of outward supplies, ITC claimed, and net tax payable for taxpayers with turnover more than...Summary of outward supplies, ITC claimed, and net tax payable for taxpayers with turnover more than Rs.5 crore in the last FY or have not chosen the QRMP scheme for the quarter of Jan - Mar, 26
2d
22 Apr 2026
GSTR-3B QRMP1
Jan - Mar, 26
GST
GSTR-3B is a self-declared summary GST return filed for States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Guja...GSTR-3B is a self-declared summary GST return filed for States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Goa, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Union territories of Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep
4d
24 Apr 2026
GSTR-3B QRMP2
Jan - Mar, 26
GST
GSTR-3B is a self-declared summary GST return filed for States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakh...GSTR-3B is a self-declared summary GST return filed for States of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Assam, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha, the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Chandigarh and Delhi
6d
25 Apr 2026
ITC-04
Oct 25 - Mar, 26
GST
Summary of Goods sent to / received from a job - worker - Those with AATO more than Rs.5 crore - Hal...Summary of Goods sent to / received from a job - worker - Those with AATO more than Rs.5 crore - Half-yearly from October 25 - March, 26 due on 25th April, 26.
7d
25 Apr 2026
ITC-04
FY 25-26
GST
Summary of Goods sent to / received from a job - worker - Taxpayers with an annual aggregate turnov...Summary of Goods sent to / received from a job - worker - Taxpayers with an annual aggregate turnover of up to Rs. 5 crore need to file ITC-04 yearly.
7d
30 Apr 2026
Form 24G
Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for furnishing of Form 24G by an office of the Government where TDS/TCS for the month of Ma...Due date for furnishing of Form 24G by an office of the Government where TDS/TCS for the month of March, 2026 has been paid without the production of a challan
12d
30 Apr 2026
Form 15G/15H
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for furnishing of Form 15G/15H declarations received during the quarter ending March, 2026
12d
30 Apr 2026
TDS Pay- 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S
Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA, 19...Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S in the month of March, 2026
12d
30 Apr 2026
TDS Payment
Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for deposit of Tax deducted by an assessee other than an office of the Government for the m...Due date for deposit of Tax deducted by an assessee other than an office of the Government for the month of March, 2026
12d
30 Apr 2026
TDS Payment - AO permitted
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for deposit of TDS for the period January 2026 to March 2026 when Assessing Officer has per...Due date for deposit of TDS for the period January 2026 to March 2026 when Assessing Officer has permitted quarterly deposit of TDS under section 192, 194A, 194D or 194H?
12d
30 Apr 2026
Form No. 61
Oct 25 - Mar, 26
Income Tax
Due date for e-filing of a declaration in Form No. 61 containing particulars of Form No. 60 received...Due date for e-filing of a declaration in Form No. 61 containing particulars of Form No. 60 received during the period October 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026
12d
30 Apr 2026
Form MSME-1
Oct 25 - Mar, 26
MCA
The MSME-1 is a half-yearly return that the specified companies need to file regarding their outstan...The MSME-1 is a half-yearly return that the specified companies need to file regarding their outstanding payments to the MSME.
12d
07 May 2026
TDS/TCS Payment
Apr, 26
Income Tax
Due date for deposit of Tax deducted/collected for the month of April, 2026. However, all sum deduct...Due date for deposit of Tax deducted/collected for the month of April, 2026. However, all sum deducted/collected by an office of the government shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government on the same day where tax is paid without production of an Income-tax Challan
19d
10 May 2026
GSTR-7
Apr, 26
GST
Summary of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and deposited under GST
laws for the month of April, 2026
22d
Tax Update
MCA Clarifies Process to Update Registered Email ID for Companies & LLPs
The MCA has outlined the procedure for updating registered email IDs in Master Data Services.
Companies/LLPs without login must register on the MCA V3 portal as Business Users using a unique email ID. Existing users can update email via the Profile Update section.
The change requires OTP autheThe MCA has outlined the procedure for updating registered email IDs in Master Data Services.
Companies/LLPs without login must register on the MCA V3 portal as Business Users using a unique email ID. Existing users can update email via the Profile Update section.
The change requires OTP authentication by two Directors/Designated Partners. Upon successful verification, the updated email ID will reflect automatically in MCA records.
The MCA has issued a draft notification dated April 8, 2026 proposing amendments to Companies (Incorporation) Rules. Key change includes consolidation of multiple forms into two new e-forms - E-CHNG (for registered office/name changes) and E-CON (for conversions and approvals).
The objective is tThe MCA has issued a draft notification dated April 8, 2026 proposing amendments to Companies (Incorporation) Rules. Key change includes consolidation of multiple forms into two new e-forms - E-CHNG (for registered office/name changes) and E-CON (for conversions and approvals).
The objective is to reduce repetitive filings and improve ease of doing business. These changes are currently in draft stage and will apply only after final notification.
DIR-3 KYC: When Will You Need to File- (Illustrations Explained)
MCA has clarified filing timelines through illustrations. For DIN allotted in FY 2025-26, first filing will be due in Apr-Jun 2029.
Existing directors who already filed KYC for FY 2025-26 need not file for next 2 years if no changes. Any mid-cycle update does not change the 3-year cycle.
PropeMCA has clarified filing timelines through illustrations. For DIN allotted in FY 2025-26, first filing will be due in Apr-Jun 2029.
Existing directors who already filed KYC for FY 2025-26 need not file for next 2 years if no changes. Any mid-cycle update does not change the 3-year cycle.
Proper planning is required to avoid missed compliance.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Update: DIR-3 KYC Now Once in 3 Years from 31 Mar 2026
MCA has amended DIR-3 KYC compliance, effective 31st March 2026. Directors holding DIN as on 31st March are now required to file DIR-3 KYC Web once every three financial years (by 30th June).
Any change in mobile, email or address must be updated within 30 days. Existing DIR-3 KYC forms have beenMCA has amended DIR-3 KYC compliance, effective 31st March 2026. Directors holding DIN as on 31st March are now required to file DIR-3 KYC Web once every three financial years (by 30th June).
Any change in mobile, email or address must be updated within 30 days. Existing DIR-3 KYC forms have been replaced with a single DIR-3 KYC Web for simplified compliance.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Issues Advisory on Company & LLP Name Reservation
The MCA has issued an advisory regarding name reservation during incorporation of companies and LLPs. Applicants are advised to ensure that proposed names strictly follow MCA guidelines and do not violate trademark or naming rules.
1. Check name availability carefully before applying
2. Avoid naThe MCA has issued an advisory regarding name reservation during incorporation of companies and LLPs. Applicants are advised to ensure that proposed names strictly follow MCA guidelines and do not violate trademark or naming rules.
1. Check name availability carefully before applying
2. Avoid names similar to existing companies or trademarks
3. Follow MCA naming guidelines to prevent rejection
4. Proper verification can speed up incorporation approval
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Reorganises ROC Jurisdictions from 16 February 2026
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has reorganised the Regional Directors (RDs) and Registrars of Companies (ROCs) structure effective 16 February 2026 to improve administration and oversight.
1) New RD and ROC jurisdictions introduced
2) MCA portal temporarily unavailable during system resThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has reorganised the Regional Directors (RDs) and Registrars of Companies (ROCs) structure effective 16 February 2026 to improve administration and oversight.
1) New RD and ROC jurisdictions introduced
2) MCA portal temporarily unavailable during system restructuring
3) Jurisdiction of some companies may change
Businesses should verify the correct ROC jurisdiction before filing forms or documents to avoid errors in company filings.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
Last Opportunity Before Strict ROC Action
The Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 remains open from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026. After closure of the scheme, Registrars of Companies will initiate necessary action against companies that fail to regularize pending filings.
This creates a limited compliance window for defaultinThe Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 remains open from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026. After closure of the scheme, Registrars of Companies will initiate necessary action against companies that fail to regularize pending filings.
This creates a limited compliance window for defaulting entities. Chartered accountants and tax professionals should proactively identify non-compliant clients and ensure corrective filings before enforcement actions begin.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
Who Cannot Avail CCFS-2026?
The CCFS-2026 scheme is not available to companies where final strike-off action under Section 248 has already been initiated, companies dissolved pursuant to amalgamation, vanishing companies, or companies that have already applied for dormant status before the scheme.
Companies should verify thThe CCFS-2026 scheme is not available to companies where final strike-off action under Section 248 has already been initiated, companies dissolved pursuant to amalgamation, vanishing companies, or companies that have already applied for dormant status before the scheme.
Companies should verify their eligibility carefully before filing under this one-time compliance window to avoid rejection of forms and loss of scheme benefits.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
Penalty Immunity Window Under CCFS-2026
Under the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, companies filing pending annual returns and financial statements before issuance of adjudication notice or within 30 days of such notice can get immunity from penalty proceedings under Sections 92 and 137.
However, immunity is not availablUnder the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, companies filing pending annual returns and financial statements before issuance of adjudication notice or within 30 days of such notice can get immunity from penalty proceedings under Sections 92 and 137.
However, immunity is not available where adjudication orders are already passed. This provision offers critical relief to defaulting companies if timely action is taken within the scheme period.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has introduced the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026) to provide a one-time opportunity for companies to complete pending annual filings at reduced additional fees.
Companies can file overdue returns by paying only 10% of additional fees. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has introduced the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026) to provide a one-time opportunity for companies to complete pending annual filings at reduced additional fees.
Companies can file overdue returns by paying only 10% of additional fees. The scheme also allows inactive companies to opt for dormant status at half fees or apply for strike-off at 25% fees.
The scheme is valid from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Portal Update: VPD Now Available During Business Hours
The MCA portal has extended the View Public Documents (VPD) service to regular business hours.
Users can now download all available public documents during the day itself, without waiting till after 6:30 PM.
This change will help professionals plan MCA-related work more efficiently.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Clarification: 7 Days Allowed for Payment
For FY 2024-25 Financial Statements and Annual Returns, the MCA fee waiver remains applicable if-
1) The DSC-affixed PDF is uploaded on or before 31 January 2026
2) Payment is made within 7 days from the date of upload of the DSC-affixed PDF
Key Point-
Payment can be completed after upload, For FY 2024-25 Financial Statements and Annual Returns, the MCA fee waiver remains applicable if-
1) The DSC-affixed PDF is uploaded on or before 31 January 2026
2) Payment is made within 7 days from the date of upload of the DSC-affixed PDF
Key Point-
Payment can be completed after upload, but the DSC-affixed PDF must be submitted within the waiver period.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Updates Small Company Status in Master Data
Ministry of Corporate Affairs now shows Small Company status directly in MCA Master Data, simplifying compliance clarity for professionals.
This classification reflects whether a company qualifies under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act based on paid-up capital and turnover thresholds. Explicit Ministry of Corporate Affairs now shows Small Company status directly in MCA Master Data, simplifying compliance clarity for professionals.
This classification reflects whether a company qualifies under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act based on paid-up capital and turnover thresholds. Explicit system visibility reduces guesswork, supports correct statutory filings, and speeds compliance decisions.
Companies and advisors should verify reflected status against audited financials to avoid incorrect filings or compliance risk.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Amends Director KYC Rules
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2025, effective from 31 March 2026.
The amendment replaces Rule 12A and mandates filing of Form DIR-3-KYC-Web for Director KYC compliance. Every individual holding a DIN as oThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2025, effective from 31 March 2026.
The amendment replaces Rule 12A and mandates filing of Form DIR-3-KYC-Web for Director KYC compliance. Every individual holding a DIN as on 31 March must file KYC on or before 30 June after every third consecutive financial year.
Further, any change in mobile number, email ID, or residential address must be updated within 30 days through DIR-3-KYC-Web, with applicable fees.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Grants Fee Waiver and Time Extension for Annual Filings (FY 2024-25)
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued General Circular No. 08/2025 dated 30 December 2025, granting relief to companies for annual filings under the Companies Act, 2013.
Companies are allowed to file e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL, and NBFC-related AOC-4 forms for FY 2024-25 up to The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued General Circular No. 08/2025 dated 30 December 2025, granting relief to companies for annual filings under the Companies Act, 2013.
Companies are allowed to file e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL, and NBFC-related AOC-4 forms for FY 2024-25 up to 31 January 2026 without payment of additional fees.
All other conditions of Circular No. 06/2025 remain unchanged.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Notifies Revised Small Company Definition (G S R 880(E))
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through Notification G.S.R. 880(E) dated 01.12.2025, has amended the Companies (Specification of Definition Details) Rules, 2014.
The amendment revises the definition of a Small Company under clause (t) of Rule 2(1). As per the new limits, a company will qualifyThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through Notification G.S.R. 880(E) dated 01.12.2025, has amended the Companies (Specification of Definition Details) Rules, 2014.
The amendment revises the definition of a Small Company under clause (t) of Rule 2(1). As per the new limits, a company will qualify as a small company if its paid-up capital does not exceed Rs. 10 crore and its turnover does not exceed Rs. 100 crore.
These revised thresholds come into effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Extends Due Date for Filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns to 31st Dec 2025
MCA has extended the deadline for filing e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 CFS, and AOC-4 XBRL for FY 2024-25 without additional fees till 31st December 2025.
This move, detailed in General Circular No. 06/2025, comes in response to stakeholder feedback and to allow companies time to adapt to theMCA has extended the deadline for filing e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 CFS, and AOC-4 XBRL for FY 2024-25 without additional fees till 31st December 2025.
This move, detailed in General Circular No. 06/2025, comes in response to stakeholder feedback and to allow companies time to adapt to the updated MCA-21 Version 3 portal and revised forms.
However, this extension does not apply to statutory deadlines like AGM timelines, and late filings after this window will attract regular penalties and fees.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
DIR-3 KYC Filing Deadline Extended to 31st October 2025 Without Late Fee
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued General Circular No. 05/2025 dated 15th October 2025, extending the deadline for filing e-form DIR-3 KYC and web-form DIR-3-KYC-WEB without payment of any late fee up to 31st October 2025.
This is a continuation of the relaxation granted earlier The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued General Circular No. 05/2025 dated 15th October 2025, extending the deadline for filing e-form DIR-3 KYC and web-form DIR-3-KYC-WEB without payment of any late fee up to 31st October 2025.
This is a continuation of the relaxation granted earlier via General Circular No. 04/2025 dated 29th September 2025. The move aims to provide additional compliance time for directors to complete their KYC formalities and avoid penalties. The circular has been issued with the approval of the competent authority.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Extends Due Date for DIR-3 KYC Filing Without Fee till 15th October 2025
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued General Circular No. 04/2025 dated 29th September 2025, extending the deadline for filing e-form DIR-3-KYC and web-form DIR-3-KYC-WEB without any filing fee.
Earlier, the last date was 30th September 2025, but based on stakeholder suggestions, thThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued General Circular No. 04/2025 dated 29th September 2025, extending the deadline for filing e-form DIR-3-KYC and web-form DIR-3-KYC-WEB without any filing fee.
Earlier, the last date was 30th September 2025, but based on stakeholder suggestions, the due date has now been extended to 15th October 2025.
This relaxation aims to provide additional time for directors to complete their KYC compliance without incurring penalties. The circular is issued with the approval of the competent authority and is available on the MCA website.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Issues Advisory on Avoiding Rejections in LLP Incorporation (FiLLiP) Applications
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued an important advisory for stakeholders filing LLP incorporation (FiLLiP) forms. To reduce rejections and resubmissions, MCA advises:
1) Ensure registered office address proof is valid (not older than 2 months) and matches the form.
2) Fill all manThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has issued an important advisory for stakeholders filing LLP incorporation (FiLLiP) forms. To reduce rejections and resubmissions, MCA advises:
1) Ensure registered office address proof is valid (not older than 2 months) and matches the form.
2) Fill all mandatory fields correctly in the subscriber sheet, as it is a critical document.
3) In conversion cases, comply with requirements like submitting latest balance sheet, obtaining consents, and publishing newspaper ads.
Following these guidelines will ensure faster approvals and fewer delays.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Private complaint barred for Sec 448 offence as it is covered under Sec 447; Companies Act proceedings quashed
PartiesYerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 of 2026
The complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the accused fabricated company records, illegally convened an EOGM and uploaded false documents on the MCA portal, leading the Special Court to take cognizance u/s 448 and 451 of the Companies A...The complainant filed a private complaint alleging that the accused fabricated company records, illegally convened an EOGM and uploaded false documents on the MCA portal, leading the Special Court to take cognizance u/s 448 and 451 of the Companies Act, along with IPC offences.
The accused challenged the proceedings before the HC u/s 482 CrPC, arguing that offences u/s 448 are linked to fraud punishable u/s 447, and therefore cognizance could not be taken on a private complaint.
The HC refused to quash the proceedings, after which the accused approached the SC.
Decision
The SC held that Section 448 is intrinsically linked to Section 447 (fraud) and therefore falls within offences covered u/s 447, attracting the bar u/s 212(6) against cognizance on a private complaint.
Accordingly, cognisance taken by the Special Court for offences u/s 448 and 451 of the Companies Act was held invalid, and those proceedings were quashed.
The Court, however, allowed the IPC offences to continue and directed the transfer of the complaint to the competent criminal court for trial.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Winding-Up Proceedings Transferred to NCLT as No Irreversible Steps Taken
PartiesM. S. Glass Industries Ltd. v. O/L, HCOS
CourtHIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CitationAPO/36/2022 CP/1127/2014 IA No. ACO/2/2022
A winding-up order was passed against M.S. Glass Industries Ltd., and the Official Liquidator appointed the appellant agency to provide security services, part of whose bills remained unpaid.
After amendments to Section 434 of the Companies Act, 201...A winding-up order was passed against M.S. Glass Industries Ltd., and the Official Liquidator appointed the appellant agency to provide security services, part of whose bills remained unpaid.
After amendments to Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the introduction of IBC, the transfer of pending winding-up matters to NCLT became mandatory.
A secured creditor applied for transfer of the winding-up proceedings to NCLT, while the appellant opposed the transfer until its outstanding dues were cleared.
Decision
The Court relied on Action Ispat (SC) and held that winding-up matters must be transferred to NCLT unless they have reached an irreversible stage.
Since the companys assets had not been put up for sale, nothing irreversible had occurred, making transfer appropriate.
The Court ordered the immediate transfer of the winding-up proceedings to NCLT, Kolkata, while granting the appellant liberty to pursue its claim before the appropriate authority.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Guarantors Cannot Use Company Court to Block Recovery After Completion of Winding Up
PartiesPC Jhalani v. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO. APP. No. 3 of 2024 CM APP. Nos. 8668 & 8670 of 2024
Personal guarantors of a company under liquidation filed an application before the Company Court to restrain IDBI Bank from recovering Rs. 252.53 crores, claiming an alleged 2023 OTS and delay by the OL.
The company had already been ordered to be wo...Personal guarantors of a company under liquidation filed an application before the Company Court to restrain IDBI Bank from recovering Rs. 252.53 crores, claiming an alleged 2023 OTS and delay by the OL.
The company had already been ordered to be wound up in 2003, its six properties were sold, and proceeds were distributed to secured creditors and workmen as per Court directions; all claims were adjudicated as on the cut-off date.
The Single Judge dismissed the application, holding that the dispute between guarantors and the bank was an independent cause of action, not related to the completed winding-up proceedings, and granted liberty to approach appropriate fora.
Decision
Once liquidation is completed, the Company Court cannot be used as a forum to shield guarantors from bank recovery actions.
Based on Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, discharge of the company does not discharge personal guarantors; hence, guarantors cannot invoke the Company Court jurisdiction.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Winding-Up Petition Transferred from High Court to NCLT for Effective Adjudication
PartiesAlok Kumar Mishra v. Vigneshwara Developwell (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO. PET. 740 OF 2014 CO.APPL. Nos. 381, 1239, 1317, 1447, 1522 OF 2017 and 511 OF 2018
The petitioner filed a winding-up petition against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. for its inability to pay its debts.
An earlier winding-up petition against the same company before the Delhi HC had already been transferred to the NCLT.
The petit...The petitioner filed a winding-up petition against Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt. Ltd. for its inability to pay its debts.
An earlier winding-up petition against the same company before the Delhi HC had already been transferred to the NCLT.
The petitioner sought the transfer of the current pending petition to the NCLT for consolidated adjudication.
Decision
The Court held that, to ensure effective adjudication of all similarly situated parties, the present petition should also be transferred to the NCLT.
Relying on Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, the HC directed the transfer of the petition.
All pending applications in the HC were closed, and the parties were allowed to proceed before the NCLT.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
No Preferential Payment to Appellants in Winding-Up Proceedings - Equal Treatment of Creditors Under Company Law
PartiesMrs. Usha Jain v. Vigneshwara Developwell (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.APP. 30 of 2024
Appellants deposited Rs. 27,50,000/- for a commercial unit with a buy-back clause but did not receive the refund after exercising the option.
They filed a winding-up petition; the respondent deposited the amount in court, but other creditors also fi...Appellants deposited Rs. 27,50,000/- for a commercial unit with a buy-back clause but did not receive the refund after exercising the option.
They filed a winding-up petition; the respondent deposited the amount in court, but other creditors also filed winding-up petitions.
The Company Court admitted the petitions, appointed an Official Liquidator, and rejected the appellants application for release of funds.
Decision
Appellants are not entitled to preferential payment and must stand with other creditors u/s 529.
Their petition does not grant precedence, and claims of ill advice are irrelevant as the winding-up process applies equally.
Appellants can file claims with the Official Liquidator, who will process disbursement as per law.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
HC Quashes Lookout Circular Against Petitioner Not Directly Involved in SFIO Investigation
PartiesSiddhartha Sudhir Moravekar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 523 OF 2023
The SFIO was investigating the financial activities of Pancard Clubs, managed by the petitioners father, but the petitioner himself was neither a shareholder nor a director.
Despite the petitioner not being named in SEBI complaints or directly invol...The SFIO was investigating the financial activities of Pancard Clubs, managed by the petitioners father, but the petitioner himself was neither a shareholder nor a director.
Despite the petitioner not being named in SEBI complaints or directly involved in Pancard Clubs, SFIO issued a Lookout Circular (LOC) against him.
The petitioner complied with all SFIO summons, traveled overseas with court permission, and maintained roots in society with family dependence and business interests abroad.
Decision
The court found no evidence that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and noted that he was not a flight risk.
The court highlighted that issuing a LOC indefinitely violates the petitioners right to personal liberty and free movement under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court quashed the LOC issued by the SFIO.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Court Upholds Travel Restrictions for Director Under SFIO Investigation
PartiesVijay Singh Dogra v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCRL.M.C. 4181/2024
Vijay Singh Dogra, a director in nine companies with connections to the Sahara Group, was subject to a Look Out Circular (LOC) by the SFIO due to his failure to provide crucial documents for an ongoing investigation.
Dogra sought permission to trave...Vijay Singh Dogra, a director in nine companies with connections to the Sahara Group, was subject to a Look Out Circular (LOC) by the SFIO due to his failure to provide crucial documents for an ongoing investigation.
Dogra sought permission to travel abroad from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024 to assist with his sons admission to the New York Film Academy and to visit his daughter in Dubai.
The SFIO argued that granting permission would hinder the investigation.
Decision
he court found that the petitioners children could travel to India to meet him, making the trip to Dubai unnecessary.
The petitioner did not provide sufficient reasons or justification for his claimed necessity to be present for his sons admission to New York.
The court concluded that the LOC was justified due to the petitioners role in the investigation and dismissed his application, upholding the restrictions on his travel.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
HC Confirms NCLTs Authority to Examine Forgery Allegations in Shareholding and Directorship Dispute
PartiesSmt. Kavita Arora v. Leptons Designtek (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.A(SB) 4/2016
The appellant was removed from the directorship, allegedly through forged documents.
She also accused respondent No. 2 of attempting to sell company properties without her consent.
The appellant filed a petition u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act...The appellant was removed from the directorship, allegedly through forged documents.
She also accused respondent No. 2 of attempting to sell company properties without her consent.
The appellant filed a petition u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the CLB, which dismissed the case, stating it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of forgery, directing her to seek redressal in civil court.
Decision
The court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to examine allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows for forensic examination.
The case was remanded to the NCLT for further adjudication, with instructions to investigate the allegations, including a forensic examination of the disputed documents.
The court allowed the appellants appeal, overturning the CLBs dismissal and affirming that the NCLT is empowered to handle the case.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Penalty Imposed on Hermes I Tickets by Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai for Statutory Non-Compliance
PartiesHermes I Tickets
CourtRegistrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Facts:
Hermes I Tickets was penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The specific non-compliance included failing to maintain accurate statutory registers and records, and failing to file the necessary returns with the ROC.
Penalty Amount: Rs. 3 Lakhs
Decision:
The ROC imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on Hermes I Tickets for its failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid such penalties.
Hermes I Tickets was penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The specific non-compliance included failing to maintain accurate statutory registers and records, and fail...Hermes I Tickets was penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The specific non-compliance included failing to maintain accurate statutory registers and records, and failing to file the necessary returns with the ROC.
Penalty Amount: Rs. 3 Lakhs
Decision
The ROC imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on Hermes I Tickets for its failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid such penalties.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
HC Dismisses Writ Petition for Company Restoration, Directs Petitioner to Approach NCLT
PartiesKarmyogi Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 96 of 2012
The petitioner companys name was initially struck off by the RoC due to failure to file statutory returns since 1996. The Delhi HC restored the companys name in 2012, conditional on filing pending returns and balance sheets.
Despite restoration, the...The petitioner companys name was initially struck off by the RoC due to failure to file statutory returns since 1996. The Delhi HC restored the companys name in 2012, conditional on filing pending returns and balance sheets.
Despite restoration, the company failed to file the required returns due to ongoing disputes among its directors.
In 2017, the RoC again struck off the companys name u/s 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking directions for the RoC to accept delayed statutory returns and revive the company.
Decision
The court held that the appropriate forum for addressing the petitioners grievances is the NCLT as per Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013.
The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the HC.
The court directed the petitioner to approach the NCLT to redress its grievances, indicating that the provisions under the old and new Companies Acts are consistent and that the new Act provides a detailed procedure for such cases.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Credit Information Disputes: Madras HCs on Borrower Rights and Responsibilities
PartiesV. Ramalingam v. ReserveBank of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF MADRAS
CitationW.P. NO. 13954 OF 2020 WMP.NO. 4249 OF 2021
V. Ramalingam had loans amounting to around Rs. 12 crores from Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. (HLFL), with an outstanding amount of Rs. 7.72 crores.
HLFL took symbolic possession of his property under the SARFAESI Act conducted an auction, realizing R...V. Ramalingam had loans amounting to around Rs. 12 crores from Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. (HLFL), with an outstanding amount of Rs. 7.72 crores.
HLFL took symbolic possession of his property under the SARFAESI Act conducted an auction, realizing Rs. 216.50 lakhs, and declared Ramalingam a wilful defaulter.
Ramalingam claimed HLFL failed to update his credit information accurately, causing financial loss, and sought arbitration under the Credit Information Companies Act.
Decision
The court noted that effective remedies were available and would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The case did not meet the criteria for interference under Article 226, such as enforcement of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice.
The court dismissed the petition, stating it was devoid of merits, and found no need to appoint an arbitrator as the grievance was resolved through other legal avenues.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Challenging Jurisdiction: HDFC Banks Victory Against Registrars Proceedings
PartiesHDFC Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies. Mum.
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2018
The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report.
The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offens...The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report.
The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank.
The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision
The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities.
The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4).
The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Delhi HC dismisses writ petition seeking an investigation into company affairs due to jurisdictional constraints.
PartiesMeghana T.V. v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationW.P.(C) NO. 6726 OF 2024
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Sections 213 and 221 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking an investigation into the affairs of Vikram Structures Pvt. Ltd. (VSPL), which was under liquidation as ordered by the NCLT.
The petitioner alleged t...The petitioner filed a writ petition under Sections 213 and 221 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking an investigation into the affairs of Vikram Structures Pvt. Ltd. (VSPL), which was under liquidation as ordered by the NCLT.
The petitioner alleged that the directors and owners of VSPL had defrauded investors, necessitating an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
The respondent argued that the cause of action arose entirely in Karnataka, where VSPLs regional office was located, thus challenging the Delhi HCs territorial jurisdiction.
Decision
The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action occurred in Karnataka and VSPLs primary operations were based there.
The court found that the presence of VSPLs head office in Delhi was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the main issues and impacts were localized to Karnataka.
The court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the Karnataka HC for appropriate relief.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Court Concludes Liquidation, Orders Dissolution of Asset-Less Company
PartiesMitmilan Enterprises v. Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 199 OF 1996
The respondent company was ordered to be wound up by the Delhi HC on January 15, 2002, with an OL appointed to manage the process. The Ex-Directors filed the Statement of Affairs and cooperated with the OL.
The company had one secured creditor, one...The respondent company was ordered to be wound up by the Delhi HC on January 15, 2002, with an OL appointed to manage the process. The Ex-Directors filed the Statement of Affairs and cooperated with the OL.
The company had one secured creditor, one preferential creditor, and five unsecured creditors. An Ex-Director repaid Rs. 24 lacs to the secured creditor from his assets. As of May 8, 2024, the companys funds were negative (- Rs. 22,681), and no assets were left for liquidation.
Despite efforts, no recovery could be made from the companys two debtors due to a lack of documents and an adverse arbitration award. No claims were received by the OL despite advertising for claims.
Decision
The court determined that the liquidation process had been fully carried out, with no remaining assets or funds, and no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings open.
Citing the SCs decision in Meghal Homes (P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors and Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court found it appropriate to dissolve the company since the OL could not proceed further due to lack of assets or funds.
The court ordered the dissolution of Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd. discharged the OL from his duties.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
HC Rejects Winding-Up Plea, Advises Petitioner to Take Overcharging Dispute to Commercial Court
PartiesNewage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. v. Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 303 OF 2014 CO.APPL. 1084 OF 2017
Newage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. filed a winding-up petition against Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd. for non-payment of Rs. 16,86,548/-, which arose from supplied construction equipment and steel scaffoldings.
The respondent alleged that the petitione...Newage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. filed a winding-up petition against Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd. for non-payment of Rs. 16,86,548/-, which arose from supplied construction equipment and steel scaffoldings.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner had been routinely overcharging and claimed that they were owed a refund of 25% of the billed amount, disputing the existence and amount of the debt.
Despite reminders and a statutory legal notice from the petitioner, the respondent did not pay, responding instead with allegations of overcharging and stopping further payments.
Decision
The court dismissed the winding-up petition as withdrawn, noting that the dispute over the payable debt constituted a triable issue.
The court stated that the Company Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding debt liability and directed the petitioner to seek resolution through a commercial suit in the appropriate Commercial Court.
The petitioner was granted liberty to file proceedings before the appropriate Commercial Court and to seek condonation of delay for the period spent during the pendency of the winding-up proceedings.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Winding-up Petition transfer to NCLT from HC due to proceedings at nascent stage.
PartiesEster Industries Ltd. v. Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 320 OF 2008 C.O. APPL. 1162 OF 2008 AND 373 OF 2019
Ester Industries Ltd. supplied polyester products to Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd., who failed to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 31,78,615/- along with interest.
Despite legal notices and dishonored cheques issued by the respondent, the payment...Ester Industries Ltd. supplied polyester products to Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd., who failed to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 31,78,615/- along with interest.
Despite legal notices and dishonored cheques issued by the respondent, the payments remained unpaid, leading to Ester Industries Ltd. filing a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956.
The winding-up petition saw minimal progress in court, with no substantial orders passed, while the IBC, 2016, and the Companies Act, 2013, came into effect during the proceedings.
Decision
Considering the enactment of Companies Act, 2013, ourt decided to transfer winding-up petition from the HC to the NCLT by Section 434.
Emphasizing the lack of substantial progress in the winding-up proceedings and citing relevant interpretations, the court concluded that transferring the case to the NCLT was appropriate.
Parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date, while interim orders issued by the HC were to remain in effect until then, allowing the NCLT to consider the matter and make appropriate decisions by law.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Refund Granted for Excess Stamp Duty Payment on Share Capital
PartiesState of Maharashtra v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NO.8821 OF 2011
National Organic Chemical India Ltd. increased its share capital from Rs. 36 crores to Rs. 600 crores in 1992, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 1.12 crores.
The State of Maharashtra amended stamp duty regulations in 1994, capping stamp duty at Rs. 25 lakh...National Organic Chemical India Ltd. increased its share capital from Rs. 36 crores to Rs. 600 crores in 1992, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 1.12 crores.
The State of Maharashtra amended stamp duty regulations in 1994, capping stamp duty at Rs. 25 lakhs.
The company increased its share capital to Rs. 1200 crores and paid Rs. 25 lakhs as stamp duty. Later company sought a refund on the basis that it had already paid stamp duty of Rs. 25 lakhs in 1992
Decision
The Court determined that the notice to the Registrar for increasing share capital is not an instrument under the Stamp Act.
Alterations to AoA under the Companies Act were deemed valid and treated as if originally contained therein.
The Court held that the Companies Act, as a special law, overrides the Stamp Act concerning AoA, leading to the directive to refund the stamp duty paid by the company.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Supreme Court Orders Payment with Interest in Securities Dispute
PartiesSharda Kapur v. Angel Broking Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2989-2990 OF 2024
Sharda Kapur filed a Claim Petition alleging that securities held by her were illegally sold by Angel Broking Ltd.
The Appellate Arbitral Tribunal of the NSE found negligence on the part of Angel Broking Ltd and awarded Kapur a credit of Rs. 21 lakh...Sharda Kapur filed a Claim Petition alleging that securities held by her were illegally sold by Angel Broking Ltd.
The Appellate Arbitral Tribunal of the NSE found negligence on the part of Angel Broking Ltd and awarded Kapur a credit of Rs. 21 lakh.
Despite legal proceedings since 2012 and various appeals, Angel Broking Ltd failed to pay the awarded amount, prompting Kapur to seek relief from the SC under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Decision
Considering the prolonged litigation and Kapurs advanced age (87 years), the SC invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to end the dispute swiftly.
The Court directed Angel Broking Ltd to pay Kapur Rs. 21 lakh along with simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Appellate Arbitral Tribunals award (27th September 2013).
The Court emphasized the need for timely compliance, giving the respondent two months to fulfill its liability recognized by the Tribunal, and clarified the procedure for lifting any lien placed by the NSE once payment was made.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Supreme Court Upholds SAT Decision on SEBI Penalty
PartiesSecurities and Exchange Board of India v. ALPS Motor Finance Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6737-6738 OF 2023
Alps Motor Finance Ltd. conducted six preferential allotments and disclosed them on the stock exchange platform.
SEBI initiated an investigation following a report from the stock exchange suggesting possible mis-utilization of proceeds in 2016.
SEB...Alps Motor Finance Ltd. conducted six preferential allotments and disclosed them on the stock exchange platform.
SEBI initiated an investigation following a report from the stock exchange suggesting possible mis-utilization of proceeds in 2016.
SEBI concluded that the company deviated from the object of the issue by not utilizing proceeds as per the stated objectives and imposed penalties. SAT by impugned order quashed order by SEBI.
Decision
The SC upheld the SATs decision, finding no good ground or reason to interfere with it.
The Court dismissed SEBIs appeal against the SATs judgment.
The Courts decision affirmed the importance of shareholder ratification and highlighted the issue of inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings as significant factor in dismissing SEBIs penalty order.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Case Law
Court Validates Capital Threshold Increase in Landmark Ruling.
PartiesSuman Kumar v. Union of India
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2020
Petitioner challenged amendment raising paid-up share capital threshold for appointing a whole-time CS in private co from Rs. 5 cr to Rs. 10 cr.
The increase aimed to counter inflation effects, enhance ease of doing business, and reduce compliance c...Petitioner challenged amendment raising paid-up share capital threshold for appointing a whole-time CS in private co from Rs. 5 cr to Rs. 10 cr.
The increase aimed to counter inflation effects, enhance ease of doing business, and reduce compliance costs. The petitioner also sought relief on corporate governance and forming a committee for company closures.
The petitioner raised concerns about non-compliance with E-FORM INC-22A but received no comment from the court.
Decision
The court upheld the validity of the amendment, deeming the increase in paid-up share capital reasonable and aligned with business facilitation.
The court emphasized that companies involved in fraud cannot seek relief, as approaching the court with unclean hands is impermissible. Stringent penalties and the existence of the SFIO address such cases.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Company Law2 days ago
Key Benefits of CCF Scheme 2026
Key Benefits of CCF Scheme 2026
Scheme Period: Applicable from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026.
Reduced Penalty: 90% r...Key Benefits of CCF Scheme 2026
Scheme Period: Applicable from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026.
Reduced Penalty: 90% relaxation in additional fees for delayed filings. Only 10% of the usual additional fee needs to be paid.
Relief for Inactive Companies: Companies can opt for strike-off (Form STK-2) or apply for dormant status (Form MSC-1) at concessional fees.
Wide Coverage: Covers pending filings under the Companies Act, 2013, including forms like MGT-7, MGT-7A, and AOC-4.
Protection from Legal Action: Offers immunity from penalties and prosecution for defaults regularized during the scheme period.
Share:
Quick Enquiry
Fill in your details and we'll get back to you shortly.
--- visitors
🔔 Stay Updated!
Get instant tax updates, due date reminders & important notifications.
