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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more