Category Archives: Chapter XVIII – CA2013

REMOVAL OF NAMES OF COMPANIES FROM THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES

Failure in Physical Verification – Removal of Name


In the last post here, we discussed the Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2022, which inserted Rule 25B with effect from 20 August 2022 (issued on 18 August 2022).

Failure in Physical Verification

In terms of Rule 25B sub-rule (5), based on the physical verification report, the Registrar shall form an opinion on whether the office is capable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices. If the Registrar finds the office incapable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices, it will send a notice to the company and all the directors:

  • of his intention to remove the name of the company from the register of companies; and
  • requesting them to send their representations along with copies of relevant documents, if any, within thirty days from the date of the notice.

The Registrar may take action under Section 248 of the Act based on the physical verification report and the representations made by the company and its directors.

Notice for Removal of Name

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 26 August 2022, published the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Second Amendment Rules, 2022 by Notification GSR 658(E) dated 24 August 2022.

This amendment effectively amends the notice for Notice by Registrar for removal of the name of a company from the register of companies in Form STK – 1.

Additional ground for removal of the name of a company from the register of the companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. Till the amendment following three grounds were there:

  • The company has failed to commence its business within one year of its incorporation;
  • The company is not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and has not made any application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant company under section 455; and
  • The subscribers to the memorandum have not paid the subscription which they had undertaken to pay at the time of incorporation of a company, and a declaration to this effect has not been filed within one hundred and eighty days of its incorporation under sub-section (1) of section 10A.

Now, a fourth ground is added to the list: “the company is not carrying on any business or operations, as revealed after the physical verification carried out under sub-section (9) of section 12”.

Public Notice of proposed removal of the name of the company from the register of companies under Section 248(1) and 248(2), namely Form STK – 5A and Form STK – 5 are also amended to similar effect.

To Join my telegram Channel: https://t.me/AishMGhrana
To Join my telegram discussion group (only for CA/CS/CMA/IP/RV): https://t.me/AishMGhrana

Physical verification of the Registered Office of a Company


“Inspector Raj”, in its whatsoever name and whichever form, is a necessary evil in India.

The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, with its 2019 version and final avatar, the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2019, inserted Section 12(9) with effect from 2 November 2018, sown the seed of Physical verification of the Registered Office of a Company.

Despite the Legislative Powers, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs thankfully restrained itself for a long time and tried a self-certification mode. Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) initially notified Rule 25A by way of the Company (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2019 with effect from 25 February 2019. Surprisingly, this was a one-time exercise in Form INC-22A (Active). The Form Active captured two-dimensional data of the registered office with documents and a photo of one of the directors showing Latitude and Longitude. However, the form might not satisfy the intended purpose of the government. No day-to-day technology presently captures the third dimension of the office – the floor of the building or vertical location of the office from sea level.

While writing on Rule 25A and Form INC-22A (Active) here, I hoped and still wish Form INC-22A (Active) to be an annual exercise as it solves other issues like a failure on the part of management to update the Registered Office Address on Record.

“Fun Fact: Distance between two latitudes is about 111 KM. Distance between two Longitude at the equator is 111 KM while at Poles it is Zero.”

Now, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, with effect from 20 August 2022 (issued on 18 August 2022) notified the Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2022 and inserted Rule 25B. (Notification at the official site here)

Photo by Ahmet Polat on Pexels.com

For physical verification, under Section 12(9), the Registrar of Companies should have reasonable cause to believe that the company is not carrying on any business or operations; he may cause a physical verification of the registered office of the company. The belief that the company is not carrying on any business or operation from the Registered office does not form a cause for physical verification. This belief should base upon the information or documents made available on MCA 21. His opinion shall not be based on any complaint, media report or other information.

The newly inserted Rule has a vital reference to Section 248, “Power of Registrar to Remove Name of Company from Register of Companies”. We expect notification of a supplementary rule in the Companies (Removal of Name of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016. [Note: it is notified and published on 26 August 2022].

Process of Verification

  1. The Registrar shall form a reasoned opinion that the company is not carrying on any business or operations;
  2. The Registrar shall issue an authorisation letter for physical verification;
  3. The Registrar shall visit at the address of the registered office of the company;
  4. The Registrar shall ensure the presence of two witnesses of the locality in which the registered office is situated;
  5. If required, the Registrar may also seek the assistance of the local police for the verification;
  6. The Registrar shall carry the documents filed in support of the address of the registered office of the company;
  7. The Registrar shall collect supporting documents of the address duly authenticated from the occupant of the property (self-attested);
  8. The Registrar shall check the authenticity of the documents filed on MCA21 by cross verification with documents so collected;
  9. The Registrar shall take a photograph of the Registered office while causing the verification (it is not clear if he will collect geo-coordinates also);
  10. The Registrar shall note the date and time of the visit and collect self-attested identity proof of the person available at the property; and
  11. The Registrar shall prepare a physical verification report in the given format.

The consequence of the Physical Verification Report

On the basis of the report of the physical verification, the Registrar shall form an opinion on whether the office is capable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices. If the Registrar finds the office incapable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices, it will send a notice to the company and all the directors:

  • of his intention to remove the name of the company from the register of companies; and
  • requesting them to send their representations along with copies of relevant documents, if any, within thirty days from the date of the notice.

The Registrar may take action under Section 248 of the Act based on the physical verification report and the representations made by the company and its directors.

To Join my telegram Channel: https://t.me/AishMGhrana
To Join my telegram discussion group (only for CA/CS/CMA/IP/RV): https://t.me/AishMGhrana

WHERE MEMBER COMPANY REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF REGISTRAR


One of the fundamental principles of corporate law is that a company independent existence than the existence of its shareholders. Therefore, all members of a company may die, the company will not.

When I read this principle, admittedly, I had limited vision. I presumed members either as natural persons with life and death or bodies corporate as members, their merger, amalgamation, winding up and liquidation. The removal of the name of the member company from the registrar was not an example suggested then.

There would be no direct impact on the existence of the company if the Registrar of Companies removed the name of a member company under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 from the register of companies. However, for companies with small numbers of members, this is not an ideal situation.

The removal of the name of one or more member companies:

  • quorum in general meetings;
  • holding of company meetings on shorter notice;
  • holder of beneficial interest in a share if in favour of such a member company; and
  • Significant beneficial ownership (SBO) may have interest impacts.

This list is not an exhaustive one.

No, paying dividends to these companies does not bother. On the contrary, it may help to a limited extent. The right issue of shares may also have an exciting twist.

Quorum in general meeting is not a big deal if managed by other members properly. They may calculate the required number of transfers to satisfy the legal number.

Even without such an odd situation, a company may face a hurdle to convene a general meeting on shorter notice. The company may not call an extraordinary public meeting on a shorter period notice, where a member company holds more than 5% shares. Similarly, where the company has less than 20 members, there will not be an annual general meeting on a shorter notice period. In the first case, only a fresh issue of shares may help. In the second case, some well-calculated share transfers by an existing member may help.

In all earlier situations, these shares shall always remain in the hand of companies whose name is not in the register of companies.

I see no direct impact on the holder of the beneficial interests except to comply with an earlier direction given by the actual owner or beneficial owner.

The law related to significant beneficial ownership comes into the picture if the member company has a shareholding of more than the threshold limit of the applicability of these rules. Unlike previous situations here, these shares may land in the hand of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority. The company will have to transfer these shares held by such a member company will also be transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority in case of declaration of dividend, but with a wait of seven years.

As the name of the member company remains there in the register of members despite its removal from the register of companies in the office of the Registrar of Companies, it requires some regulatory step to be taken. I suggest a law to transfer shares belonging to these member companies in favour of the Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority.

Tax stains are good for Strike Off Companies


Daag Achchhe haiN (Stains are good)” This must be a tagline of a politician or may of a Strike-off company.  Congratulations to all strike-off companies with income tax proceedings. A circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes may bring back life to these strike-off companies. It is reported that on or before 4th January 2018, NCLT, vide its interim orders, directs 46 strike –off companies to be deemed to be restored to its original number and entitles petitioner, Income Tax Department to raise demand by serving notice in accordance with law.

Continue reading

Understanding Form DIR – 10


Many years ago one Hindu priest told me, those worshipping Laxmi ji (goddess of wealth) before without satisfying Ganesh Ji (god of goodness) may not get good wealth. We need to follow established a procedure to get the desired result. Without understanding utility of Form DIR – 10, its use may not give the desired result. Here, we will have a discussion.

Continue reading

Remedies for disqualified directors of strike – off companies


Compliance way or Confine way! The Government made it clear. Directors who were on a long-term picnic after removal of names of their “shell companies” are now offered sleepless nights. I appreciate.

Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued two important lists in this regard –

  1. List Of Directors Associated With Struck Off Companies U/S 248
  2. List Of Disqualified Directors U/S 164 (2)(A)

Continue reading

Appeal or Application for Restoration of Names of Company


The National Company Law Tribunal (Amendment) Rules, 2017 notified on 6th July 2017 which came into force in same date inserted Rule 87A the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. In this post, we will discuss newly inserted rules with brief background.

Continue reading

Application for removal of Name of Company


Application for removal of the name of the companies from the register of companies maintained by Company registrars has legal roots in Subsection (2) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 as discussed earlier here. Rule 4 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 deals with its procedural aspects. We will discuss Rule 4 in this post.

[Law stated in this post was valid from 26 December 2016 to 9 May 2019. For Law effective from 10 May 2019, visit here.

Continue reading

Show Cause Notices for Suo-motu strike off of company


In earlier post here, we discussed law relating to suo-motu removal of name of company from the register of companies of the Registrar of companies. Recently, Registrar of Companies posted strike off notices in bulk of companies seems eligible for suo-motu strike off. When Government is claiming it a strike on shell companies, such notices received mixed reaction. Public notices are also published by almost all Registrar of Companies. One can access these public notices here.

Continue reading

Suo-motu Removal of name of company


Suo-motu removal of name of the companies from the register of companies maintained by Company registrars is legal roots in Sub – section (1) of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 as discussed earlier here in its original form and its amendment by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 as discusses thereafter. Rule 3 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 deals with its procedural aspects. We will discuss Rule 3 in this post.

Continue reading

Companies Act 2013 Amended by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016


A notification issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified section 255 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. By virtue of notification of Section 255 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; the Companies Act, 2013, stands amended in accordance with Schedule XI of the IBC2016 with effect from 15th November 2016. We shall have a short discussion here.

Continue reading

REMOVAL OF NAME OF COMPANIES


Life always started to die. The company can be created and wind up. Sometimes, Idea of a company conceives, but fail to take life.

[Law state in this post came into effect from 26 Dec 2016 after a few amendments.]

POWER OF REGISTRAR TO REMOVE NAME (SECTION 248):

Intimation for Removal of Name by the Registrar:

The Registrar may send a notice to the company and all its director of his intention to remove the name of the company from the register of companies when the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe –

Continue reading