CA Foundation Business Laws Exam Analysis January 2026, Question Highlights

CA Foundation Business Laws Exam Analysis January 2026 attempt is given here by CA Nikesh Agarwal (CA Wallah by PW). It was said that the CA Foundation Law paper for January 2026 was moderate and lengthy. While some questions were tricky, theory questions were straightforward. A notable shift occurred in Question 3(c), moving from the Indian Contract Act to the Sale of Goods Act, impacting weightage. Key topics, including recent amendments and new case studies, were well-represented across all acts.

CA Foundation Business Laws Exam Analysis January 2026 Attempt

This analysis reviews the CA Foundation Law paper from January 2026, highlighting its structure, comparative insights, and detailed question coverage. It assesses how the paper aligned with previous trends and predictions. The examination featured new case-study questions and adjustments in act-wise weightage.

Enroll Now for CA Foundation Courses

CA Foundation Business Laws 2026 Paper Structure and Comparative Analysis

The January 2026 Law paper, though lengthy, was less fragmented than the September 2024 attempt. The September 2024 paper was exceptionally lengthy due to almost every 7-mark question being broken into smaller parts (e.g., 3+4 or 2+3 marks), with no direct questions. In contrast, the current paper maintained a more conventional structure while still requiring significant time to complete.

Paper Pattern and Weightage Changes

The paper's overall pattern aligned with the "September 25 pattern," consistent with the trend observed across five attempts since the new syllabus introduction up to May 2025. However, a significant deviation occurred in Question 3(c).

Traditionally, Question 3(c) was sourced from the Indian Contract Act (ICA). In this exam, it was surprisingly from the Sale of Goods Act (SoGA). This led to an Act-wise weightage shift:

Detailed Question Analysis and Topic Coverage of CA Foundation Business Laws 2026 Exam

A notable trend was the inclusion of new case-study based questions. These were fresh, not from past papers, and possibly drafted using modern tools. Conversely, theory questions were largely repetitive, often appearing in previous examinations.

Specific Question Highlights

• Companies Act, 2013:

A question on Small Company was anticipated due to a recent amendment, reflecting the institute's tendency to test updated regulations. The Common Seal also appeared, despite recent testing, indicating its continued importance. A question on OPC (One Person Company) was included, even after being a 7-mark question in the previous attempt. Other covered topics included Government Company, Transfer of Shares in a Private Company, and the distinction between Company Limited by Shares and Company Limited by Guarantee.

• Indian Partnership Act, 1932:

The institute presented a case study requiring students to determine if a partnership exists or not, a format specifically highlighted by the faculty as highly probable. Questions related to the Rights of a Transferee and the procedure for admitting an Incoming Partner (requiring consent of all partners) were also present.

• Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (LLP):

A question on the Registered Office of an LLP was asked. The faculty noted this topic had never been tested before, making it particularly important, though it carried only 3 marks. The minimum number of partners was also covered.

• Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (SoGA):

A case study related to the doctrine of Caveat Emptor (involving a skin irritation scenario) was posed. Another question required students to differentiate between a Condition and a Warranty and classify given scenarios. The topic of Transfer of Property / Passing of Property appeared in Question 3(c), replacing the typical Indian Contract Act question. Additional topics included the Right of Resale and Rights of a true owner regarding title.

• Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA):

A question appeared from Unit 1 (Communication of Offer/Acceptance), which was an exception to the faculty's recommended study sequence. Questions also came from Consideration, including a case study on gifts. A question on social relationships addressed the intention to create legal relations. The institute asked about agreements opposed to public policy (a sub-topic) alongside the main topic of unlawful objects/consideration, which was an unusual approach. The faculty also emphasized a specific study sequence recommended for the Indian Contract Act to optimize preparation (Recommended ICA Unit Sequence: 2 → 4 → 6 → 3 → 7 → 5 → 9 → 8 → 1). Discharge of Surety was another topic covered.

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

Questions on Promissory Note & its Essentials appeared as predicted. Section 138 (Dishonour of Cheque), highlighted as a high-probability question, was also asked.

• Indian Regulatory Framework (IRF):

A question on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was asked. This was considered an anomaly, as prior analysis showed that questions from the RTP (Revision Test Paper) for the IRF chapter had never been repeated in the main exam. However, the RBI question from the Jan 26 RTP made an appearance. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (IBBI) was also deemed important by the faculty.