Skip to main content

MCA notifies 183 new sections of Companies Act 2013 in Phase IV

 1) The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified 183 new sections of the Companies Act 2013 and some sub- sections of 13 sections which were already notified by notification dated 12th September 2013 and remaining schedule, in the fourth phase today, by way of notification dated 26th March 2014.

2) These sections have been notified to come into effect from 1st April 2014.

3) With the notification of these sections, now a total of 283 sections of the new Act stand notified.

4) With the notification of aforesaid sections, it can be assumed that relevant rules will also be notified shortly as most of them are dependent on rules.

5) The sections remaining to be notified are related to National Financial Reporting Authority, Investor and Education Protection Fund, Compromise and arrangement, oppression and mismanagement, winding up, sick companies ,special courts, national company law tribunal. Majority of these sections are not notified due to pending case in Supreme court with respect to the National Company Law Tribunal.

Status as on date:  

Total Section
Total Sections notified till date
Nos. of Section pending notification
470
283
187


The list of sections notified under Phase III along with title is given below:  

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

Section 2 – Definitions

Clause (2) - Accounting Standards
Clause (7) - Auditing Standards
Clause (13) - Books of Accounts
Clause (31) - Deposits
Clause (41) - Financial year
Clause (42) - Foreign company
Clause (47) - Independent Director
Clause (48) - Indian Depository Receipt
Clause (62) - One Person Company
Clause (83) - Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Clause (85) - Small Company
Explanation (d) of clause (87)

 Article referred: http://www.caclubindia.com/forum/mca-notifies-183-new-sections-of-companies-act-2013-286567.asp#.UzPegfmSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more