New system for reserving name

MCA has vide its notification dated 20th January, 2018 introduced a new system of name reservation for new companies as well as existing companies. It is called RUN (Reserve Unique Name) and it is available on the webspace as against a form which was hitherto the norm with MCA. So form INC-1 has been done away with.

RUN does not ask for too many details - just entity type, CIN, proposed name & comments. One needs to feed data into it and see how it works before commenting on the efficacy of the system.

Hitherto the form INC-1 used to run into a wall called the Central Reservation Centre or CRC. The CRC was known mostly for rejecting names rather than approving them and they had a funny, vague and ambiguous internal guidelines which they followed ridiculously. That is if the proposed name matched an existing entity's name by 50% it was automatically rejected. It is so silly and in absence of no further details as to how that system worked, it was a pain in the wrong place.

RUN does not require any digital signature to be uploaded, so hope it is not subject to misuse. People could just apply for several unique names and sit on it thereby preventing those names from being available for genuine entrepreneurs. I hope this is not the case. As i have said elsewhere unless and until we go through the new system, we will be unable to comment on its efficacy.

Also not aware if the RUN has some fees to be paid, which i am sure it has, then people could end up paying multiple times for different names because there is no resubmission process in the RUN system.

I hope RUN has some kind of appeal system in place otherwise what will happen is again some stupid internal guidelines will be followed much to the heartburn of genuine entrepreneurs.


In fact the CRC was so idiotic that they used to reject change name applications of existing companies without giving it any thought whatsoever.

Apparently the form INC-32(SPICe) has also been amended alongwith the digital MOA and AOA in forms INC-33 and INC-34 respectively. One has to look into these forms to find out what changes they have made.

Where the no. of subscribers to a new company are more than 7 or where the documents are being executed outside India, then the digital MOA & AOA is not to be used. Instead the duly signed MOA & AOA needs to be attached to the form INC-32.

DIN for a Director in an existing company

MCA has vide its notification dated 26th January, 2018 eased the requirement of a DIN (Director Identification Number) for appointment of a Director in an existing company. They have amended the Companies (Appointment & Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 to that extent.

Rule 9(1) has been amended as follows:

" (1) Every applicant, who intends to be appointed as director of an existing company shall make an application electronically in Form DIR-3, to the central Government for allotment of a Director Identification Number (DIN) along with such fees as provided under the companies (Registration offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.

Provided that in case of proposed directors not having approved DIN, the particulars of maximum three directors shall be mentioned in Form No.INC-32 (SPICe) and DIN may be allotted to maximum three proposed directors through Form INC-32 (SPICe)";

What this means is that if a person is proposed to be appointed as a Director of an existing company (as against a company to be incorporated), then he need not mandatorily have a DIN, which was a pre-existing condition. In that case, the company has to file form INC-32 (SPICe) and this form INC-32 (SPICe) can take maximum 3 DIN applications. The additional document to be attached to the form INC-32 (SPICe) is the board resolution approving the appointment of these new directors.

Now this form INC-32(SPICe) is an incorporation form, so why confuse it with the DIN forms, it is not clear at all. Why not enable form DIR-3 itself to take upto 3 applications and allow it to be uploaded that way with the board resolution attached. Perhaps they could have formed a DIR-3 (company) form as against a DIR-3 (individual) form. Confusion worse confounded.

Then again we come to Rule 9(3) which is pertaining to form DIR-3. The main sub rule 9(3)(a) has been left as it is i.e.

"The applicant shall download Form DIR-3 from the portal, fill in the required particulars sought ¹[therein, verify and sign the form] and after attaching copies of the following documents, scan and file the entire set of documents electronically-"

The heading of Rule 9 has been changed to 

"Application for allotment of Director rdentificataon Number before appointment in an existing company,,;"

Earlier it was 

"Application for Allotment of Director Identification Number"

Now under this revised heading of Rule 9, there are two forms prescribed i.e. INC-32 (SPICe) and form DIR-3 without clearly specifying when both of these forms are to be used. 

It is not clear now how many forms are to be used. DIR-3 by the Director, INC 32(SPICe) by the company and thereafter another form DIR-12 for appointment of Directors. 

MCA is clearly losing its way, it is a badly drafted amendment with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.