We are filing representation before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on behalf of professional suffering from Rejection of Name by CRC.
I am Fellow member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India and in Practice since 2010 . I myself had loss some big assignments and lost money due to rejections by the CRC .
We believe that the officer sittings in CRC are not corrupt, but there is some corruption due to which people are earning Rs 30,000/- to 50,000/- for name approval which in normal case would have been rejected by the CRC.
We are going to file a representation to the PMO office to the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Corporate Affairs informing them the issues we professionals and entrepreneurs are facing to “Start Business”
We are requesting you to kindly share why your Company name or Company Incorporation was rejected so that we can compile it and file it with our representation.
Sharing some of Rejection stories:
|Sr. No||Name||E Mail||Reason for Rejection||Reason for Rejection|
|1||Deepak Singhalemail@example.com||The biggest Reason is NAME IS TOO GENERAL||And for TM atleast they should mention under which class it is registered, as earlier ROC gives clear remarks that this word is registered under this class|
|2||K. Sankara Subramanian||<firstname.lastname@example.org>||In our case, the promoter is holding a valid TM under class 14 and applied for incorporation with that TM Name. But the Form was marked for resubmission stating the name resembles with a TM under class 35. I think they are not even looking into the attachments or explanation letters.|
|3||sweety kapoor||<email@example.com>||so but my colleague did not get the first name approved through run and rs.1000/- gone later second name which had a simliar name got approved strange|
|4||Sourabh Singhal||<firstname.lastname@example.org>||Most common Reason
Name is Too General
|5||Durga Bansal||<email@example.com>||In my case, they rejected application 2 times for want of more documents and when third time we submitted the application with all the desired documents then they rejected saying the name is resembling with an existing company but the name given was totally different.|
|6||Manoj Jain <firstname.lastname@example.org>||my concern is why ROC cancel the SRN of INC for the change of name and ask for re-application through RUN and again rejected the application on the same grounds which was accepted earlier at the time of filing INC-1. they should migrate all the approves SRN applied through INC-1.what about the Companies who got the approval from Stock Exchanges and shareholders on the basis of earlier approval||In that case it seen name was approved through INC-1 but rejected in RUN|
|7||Harshit Shah <email@example.com>||Name applied: _____ Capital Advisors Private Limited (Purely advisory activity does not need SEBI approval)
In-principle approval of concerned regulator is not provided as proposed name includes the word such as Insurance, Bank, Stock Exchange, Venture Capital, Asset Management, Nidhi, or Mutual Fund.
Name is resembling /closely resembling Companies/LLP
|8||Manisha Menon <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Dear All,
I have till now tried four times to get one simple name for our Company. Everytime I am getting complaint that the name has been trademarked or the name remotely resembles to some other Company’s name. Again we have put for name approval. We are facing more difficulty because “RUN” does not have resubmission option. It only gets rejected and our Client’s loose money just like that. Its a very bad idea that MCA has brought. Its a loss of money for the clients. We do not mind paying stamp duty but name approval form should have resubmission option.
|9||Gyaneshwar Sahai <email@example.com>||Name is resembling /closely resembling Companies/LLP|
|10||Aarti Bhasin||<firstname.lastname@example.org>||I faced the reason that the name is too generic (which was not the case as the same was available when I checked under “name availability” on MCA services). I find it totally unjustifiable.|
|11||Taruna Kalra <email@example.com>||1. they are not checking attachments properly. in hurry, they sent form in re-submission, without checking that attachments are already there|
|12||Mittal Shah <firstname.lastname@example.org>||We have filed name approval application under RUN on MCA portal SRN G75638643 on 3 February 2018 for “LIFESTYLE CLUB AND LESIURE PRIVATE LIMITED” which is rejected by CRC on 6 February 2018 on the basis that vide – Name is resembling /closely resembling Companies/LLP. The rejection letter stated that Proposed name is closely resemble with existing/reserved Company(s)/LLP(s) ‘LIFESTYLE CLUBOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED’ , ‘LIFESTYLE LEISURES PRIVATE LIMITED’ and many others. Hence, it is not considerable as per the provisions of Sec 4(2) of Cos Act-2013 r.w. ,Companies (INC) Rules, 2014.
Therefore, we again filed another application for name on 6 February 2018 itself as the client eagerly wants to form a company vide SRN G75901363 after checking availability of the desired name on the portal. Accordingly we applied for a modified new name “RC LIFESTYLE CLUB AND LEISURE PRIVATE LIMITED” which was also rejected again after waiting for two days on the similar grounds. Proposed name is nearly resembling with the names of the existing/reserved company/LLP ” RC LEISURE PRIVATE LIMITED”. Hence, not considerable as per the provisions of section 4(2) of the Companies Act -2013. Proposed name with “RC” is a TM under Class 36, Hence not considerable in view of provisions of rule 8(2) (a) (ii) of Companies (Inc.) Rules, 2014. hence the form is rejected.
We have also raised ticket for service complaint on MCA portal asking for possible solution as the client is in urgency to form a company and start a deal, the government on the public communication as well as on MCA portal saying that now incorporation of a company is “zero fee”, and “starting a business much easier” but we did not find any solution from the compliant that we raised also, two names were rejected causing delay of almost 5 days and still we are back in the same position. Government should either provide some window to check name from all angles by the customer only else provide few name options while applying so alternative names can be approved at least and business can be started without LOSING TIME AND MONEY. MCA tickets only give caveated answers, there is no solution provided.
We need alternative solution on name approval as we do not see any similarity in this class of proposed business. If both these names are not available we wish to continue with “LIFESTYLE LIVING CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED” , we have LLP reserved with the same name.
this is a draft email summarizing our complaints with CRC.
|13||DEEPAK SADHU <email@example.com>||Hi All
It has become a scary assignment to take up incorporation…..I will not be sure if approval of the name will be sought or not….
Please help….I am ready for volunteering to the Ministry and ICS
|14||Alpi Nehrafirstname.lastname@example.org||Name is resembling /closely resembling Companies/LLP.|
|15||Akshat Gargemail@example.com>||Name Applied : AYUSHI PROGOLD PRIVATE LIMITED Reason for Rejection Present name of the company includes/indicates “Finance/Investment/Stock Broking etc” which is allowed , subject to in principal approval from the concerned regulatory authority is furnished, for the proposed name change.|
|16||Pratik Dhodia <firstname.lastname@example.org>||We also filed Name Application through RUN, Got rejected twice, Reason being “approval of Regulatory Body Required” Though the Main Object of the Proposed Company was Carrying on Financial Advisory & Consultancy Business.|
|17||Anu Pasrija <email@example.com>||Hi
I am not understanding the basic idea of bringing this RUN feature into picture . It is not doing any ease of business .So much exercise needs to be done while applying for the name which is actually very time consuming Over that CRC is taking almost 2-3 days for approval rather rejection I must say which is making us speechless before the Clients . We cannot quote exact fees to the client because we dont know how many attempts it would take for name approval .
Incorporation has really become a tough assignment to take up
|18||CS Praveen Pandeyfirstname.lastname@example.org||Proposed Name – AIMS MAX GARDENIA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITEDProposed names with prefix “AIMS” is a TM under Class 36 or many more Rule 8(2) (a) (ii) of Companies (Inc.) Rules, 2014 Hence, not considerable as per the provisions of section 4(2) of the Companies Act -2013. – in Our application name is AIMS MAX GARDENIA|
|19||FCS Mahesh Grandhi||<email@example.com>||We filed for the proposed name with the prefix which includes capital word and like i.e., capitalman and its going to be take up only infrastructure objects and we filed three times and they are asking to submit declaration of Nbfc/Rbi /Sebi which is under rule 8 of INC rules. But Promoters are not convincing to give declaration as required by mca as their proposed company is not a capital trading company
there shall be some stringent rule for capital trading companies …. mere having prefix of the word capitalman, how can anyone give declaration .
|20||Harshit Shah <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Name applied was: BHT Commodities Private Limited.
Reason for rejection:
|21||Mayank Arora email@example.com||The Biggest reason we are getting is of TRADEMARK, in case name doesnt fall in the same class than also they raise objection.
In one case MNC wanted to Form a IT Company in India with the same name but CRC did not allow and raised an Objection that Name is too general, PFA Rejection letter
|22||Sandip Jejani||Dear Concern
1. One of my client is having four Companies starting with the name “Sahyog”
a. Sahyog Kuries Pvt. Ltd.
These Companies are almost 20 years old (Directors and Shareholders common in all) but while applying for the name of new Company the form has got rejected on the ground that it is a trade mark of some other Companies.
The name required is:
a. Sahyog Finance Pvt. Ltd.
2. Second Client is having two Companies starting with the name “Anisha” (15 to 20 years old with common Directors and Shareholders)
a. Anisha Interno Pvt. Ltd.
The name required is:
a. Anisha Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Please look into the matter and suggest.
|23||More Legal Services <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Name includes a registered trademark/application to trademark registration|
|24||Sanajy Dholkiaemail@example.com||The name was made available under old INC 1 and while Filing Form 24 with ROC|
|they are asking for RUN SRN Applied under RUN on 6th Feb No answer and still showing|
Plz share your story
FCS, LL.B, M.Com
Kashif Ali & Associates
C-100, New Friends Colony, Sarai Juelna, Opp Escort Heart Institute, New Delhi-25
Ph: 9718483209, mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
MCA Vide its notification No. G.S.R. 48 dated 20th January 2018 issued on 25th January 2018 has amended The Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Amendment Rules, 2018
These Rules shall come into effect from 26th January 2018
- Introduction of “RUN – Reserve Unique Name” Web service for name reservation, which will be launched on 26.01.2018.
- *Zero Fee* for incorporation of all companies with authorized capital upto Rs. 10 lakh.
- Re-engineering the process of allotment of DIN by allotting it through the combined SPICe form only at the time of an individual’s appointment as Director (in case he/she doesn’t have a DIN).
For Kashif Ali & Associates
FCS, LL.B, M.com
Ph: 9718483209, Mail: email@example.com
*Automatic Reactivation of DIN*
Stakeholders of Condonation of Delay Scheme (CODS) (notified vide General Circular No.16/2017 dated 29th December 2017) may kindly note that the process for ‘reactivation’ of the DINs in respect of disqualified Directors has been completed and the status of the relevant DINs can be checked now. Stakeholders are therefore requested to file necessary ‘overdue documents’ as per the scheme.
*CODS SCHEME NOT AVAILABLE TO SOME DIRECTORS*
They may further note that the scheme is not applicable for those Directors who may have been associated with a company which was struck off under Section 248(1) of
the Companies Act-2013 and DINs for such individuals shall be
re-activated only upon receipt of orders for revival of the said company, as per due process laid down under Section 252 of the Companies Act-2013.
Please feel free to ask any query or clarification related to re-activation of your Company under CODS Scheme or through NCLT.
For Kashif Ali & Associates
FCS, LL.B, M.Com
Ph: 9718483209, Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
“”The Central Government notified the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Amendment Act) on 3rd January, 2018. The provisions of this Amendment Act shall come into force on the date or dates as the Central Government may appoint by notification(s) in the Official Gazette. A few provisions in the Amendment Act have important bearing on the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code)””………and define the reason of amendment in section-53, Section 197, and Section 247″”
However it is nowhere mentioned that the date of coming into effect of these provisions shall be date of issue of press relase i.e. 8th January 2018. We are assuming that the date of coming into effect of these sections is 8th January 2018.
For Kashif Ali & Associates
FCS, LL.B, M.Com.
C-100, GF, Sarai Julena, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025
Ph: 9718483209 Mail : email@example.com
- New Name Reservation Service
Discontinuation of E-form INC-1
MCA is proactively designing a Front Office service (replacing INC-1 eform with Web-Form) for Name Reservation and Change of Name for companies capturing only absolutely essential information from the applicants. The said service is likely to be rolled out on 26th January 2018
Therefore w.e.f. 00:00 hours on 06-01-2018, INC-1 will not be available on the MCA Portal. Stakeholders are advised to submit INC-1 application till 23:59 hours of 05-01-2018. Stakeholders who reserved names using INC-1 are requested to use SPICe for incorporation immediately. However, resubmission of INC-1 is allowed till 23:59 hours of 11-01-2018.
- Discontinuation of INC-7 (Application for Incorporation of Company (Part I Company and Company with more than Seven Subscribers)
INC-7 form is likely to be discontinued w.e.f 10.01.2018 in case the name reserved using INC-1 is to be used for incorporation through SPICe form, users should file the form latest by 17.01.2018. It is requested that SPICe should be filed with due care as it will be allowed only one resubmission which has to be completed latest by 25.01.2018. Stakeholders may plan accordingly
- Modification in E-form DIR-3 (Application for Director Identification Number)
It is proposed to reengineer the process of allotment of DIN by allotting DIN to individuals only at the time of their appointment as Directors (If they do NOT possess a DIN) in companies.
DIR-3 (Application for Director Identification Number) would be applicable for the allotment of DIN to individuals in respect of existing companies only and shall be filed by the existing company in which the proposed Director is to be appointed.
Further, DINs to the proposed first Directors in respect of new companies would be mandatorily required to be applied for in SPICe forms (subject to a ceiling of 3 new DINs) only.
It is also proposed to modify DIR-3 to permit allotment of upto 2 new DINs (since SPICe provides for upto 3 new DINs) only in respect of ‘Producer Companies’. A separate notification would be issued for the same and stakeholders may plan accordingly.
FCS, LL.B, M.com