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 | |
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…
Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…
CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…
Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…
No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…