According to Union Minister of State for Law & Justice and Corporate Affairs Shri P.P. Chaudhary (as stated in Lok Sabha today), MCA has filed prosecution against 780 listed companies under various sections of Companies Act, 2013 due to non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns
It was stated that the Government has taken any steps against listed companies which are not functioning. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has filed prosecution against 780 listed companies under various sections of Companies Act, 2013 due to non-filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns.
As on 31st December 2015, there were 15.19 lakh registered companies in India. Of these, 10.7 lakh companies were active in which 7,269 were listed companies. There were only 7,270 active listed companies out of 17.21 lakh registered companies as on December 2017 whereas in December 2014 there were 7,261 active listed companies out of 14.39 lakh registered companies in India.
The Registrar of Companies (RoCs)–wise number of registered and closed companies (under section 248(2), CA 2013) during the last two (2) financial years is as under:
| Sl.No | Name of RoCs | FY 2015-16 | FY 2016-17 | ||
| Companies registered | Closed Companies | Companies registered | Closed Companies | ||
| 1 | AHMEDABAD | 3,692 | 1,253 | 4,645 | 1,097 |
| 2 | ANDAMAN | – | – | 38 | – |
| 3 | BANGALORE | 7,554 | 716 | 8,905 | 263 |
| 4 | CHANDIGARH | 1,344 | 447 | 1,496 | 365 |
| 5 | CHENNAI | 4,975 | 1,165 | 5,433 | 798 |
| 6 | CHHATTISGARH | 420 | 56 | 537 | 84 |
| 7 | COIMBATORE | 1,148 | 210 | 1,227 | 185 |
| 8 | CUTTACK | 1,247 | 61 | 1,523 | 62 |
| 9 | DELHI | 17,525 | 4,566 | 20,274 | 3,684 |
| 10 | ERNAKULAM | 2,202 | 467 | 3,067 | 358 |
| 11 | GOA | 236 | 12 | 304 | 149 |
| 12 | GWALIOR | 1,544 | 507 | 2,172 | 401 |
| 13 | HIMACHAL PRADESH | 263 | 113 | 340 | 81 |
| 14 | HYDERABAD | 7,938 | 235 | 8,895 | 217 |
| 15 | JAIPUR | 2,330 | 854 | 2,695 | 605 |
| 16 | JAMMU | 273 | 10 | 274 | 37 |
| 17 | JHARKHAND | 866 | 151 | 1,029 | 55 |
| 18 | KANPUR | 7,527 | 1,062 | 8,682 | 242 |
| 19 | KOLKATA | 4,473 | 2,089 | 4,754 | 2,628 |
| 20 | MUMBAI | 11,183 | 2,276 | 12,345 | 3,750 |
| 21 | PATNA | 2,394 | 229 | 2,711 | 101 |
| 22 | PONDICHERRY | 99 | 20 | 93 | 15 |
| 23 | PUNE | 4,331 | 730 | 5,159 | 786 |
| 24 | SHILLONG | 395 | 82 | 572 | 78 |
| 25 | UTTARAKHAND | 522 | 37 | 678 | 19 |
| TOTAL | 84,481 | 17,348 | 97,848 | 16,060 | |
Section 248(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for removal of name of company from the register of companies if it is not carrying on any business or operation for a period of 2 (two) immediately preceding financial years and has not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of dormant company u/s 455. Based on the above mentioned provision, 2.97 lakh companies were identified under this category as on 31.03.2017 and after following due process names of 2,26,166 companies were struck off from the register of companies as on 31.12.2017. The States/UTs-wise details of such 2,26,166 companies is:
| Sl.No | States/UTs | Removed from Register of companies |
| 1 | Andaman & Nicobar | 76 |
| 2 | Andhra Pradesh | 3,633 |
| 3 | Arunachal Pradesh | 14 |
| 4 | Assam | 172 |
| 5 | Bihar | 1,557 |
| 6 | Chandigarh | 1,453 |
| 7 | Chhattisgarh | 906 |
| 8 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 46 |
| 9 | Daman and Diu | 13 |
| 10 | Delhi | 43,925 |
| 11 | Goa | 1,744 |
| 12 | Gujarat | 11,389 |
| 13 | Haryana | 3,882 |
| 14 | Himachal Pradesh | 754 |
| 15 | Jammu & Kashmir | 1,394 |
| 16 | Jharkhand | 636 |
| 17 | Karnataka | 18,165 |
| 18 | Kerala | 4,059 |
| 19 | Lakshadweep | 3 |
| 20 | Madhya Pradesh | 4,702 |
| 21 | Maharashtra | 59,849 |
| 22 | Manipur | 9 |
| 23 | Meghalaya | 30 |
| 24 | Mizoram | 2 |
| 25 | Nagaland | 6 |
| 26 | Odisha | 1,824 |
| 27 | Puducherry | 571 |
| 28 | Punjab | 2,928 |
| 29 | Rajasthan | 5,178 |
| 30 | Sikkim | – |
| 31 | Tamil Nadu | 24,723 |
| 32 | Telangana | 16,817 |
| 33 | Tripura | 14 |
| 34 | Uttar Pradesh | 6,822 |
| 35 | Uttarakhand | 792 |
| 36 | West Bengal | 8,078 |
| Total | 2,26,166 | |
ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…
Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…
ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…
Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…
The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…
One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…