Rejected company name rectification application can not be revived u/s 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2013 with reference 1956 Act.
Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for rectification in the name of the company. 16. As per sub-section (1) the Central Government in case a company through inadvertence or otherwise, on its first registration or on its registration by a new name, is registered by a name which is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of a company already in existence, may direct the company to change its name within a period of three months from the issue of such direction.
MCA by circular has clarified the representations from Regional Directors on the issue as under:
General Circular No. 04/2017
F. N’o. 17/89/2016-CL-V GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
5th Floor, ‘A’ Wing Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. R.P. Road, New Delhi
Dated :16.05.2017
To
All Regional Directors,
All Registrars o( Companies,
All Stakeholders
Sir,
A representation was received from Regional Director, Mumbai seeking clarification as to whether Regional Directors can entertain fresh applications u/s 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect of applications which were earlier rejected by them under Companies Act, 1956 on the ground of being time barred as the prescribed period of twelve months had been completed (under Section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956). It was expressed that Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not specify any time limitation.
2 The matter has been examined in consultation with D/o Legal Affairs and it is clarified that applications that were rejected by Regional Directors under Section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that such applications were made after the requisite period of twelve months specified therein, can not apply afresh under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the extinguished limitation can not be considered to be revived even if no limitation period has been specified/laid down in the said section.
3. This issues with approval of the Secretary, MCA.
Yours’ Faithfully
(KMS Narayanan)
Assistant Director
Tel: +91-11-23387263
Non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for return filed u/s 148 even though belatedly, makes the assessment framed bad in…
Calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market – Supreme Court In…
Appeal against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who…
Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon non-existent AI generated case laws. Supreme Court recommends action…
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…