MCA Name Resubmission Limit: Fees After Failed Attempts

One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

TL;DR: The Companies Act, 2013 does not fix a "three attempts and you're done" cap on name resubmission. What limits you is the MCA portal's workflow plus the registration-office fee rules, and yes, once the free resubmissions are exhausted a government fee does apply before you can try again. Most rejections can be fixed, but only if you stop resubmitting and repair the name itself.

Vikram Malhotra wanted a private limited company in Pune. First-time promoter, one product idea, and a name he had already got printed on a mock visiting card. His chartered accountant, Anil Kulkarni, filed the name reservation through the MCA portal in the second week of April 2025.

It came back. Then it came back again.

The objections were the usual ones, dressed in portal language: the proposed name was found to be too nearly resembling an existing one. By the third round, Kulkarni's office told Malhotra something new. Keep resubmitting, and a government fee would have to be paid before the next attempt. That was when Malhotra started asking whether a hard cap actually exists, or whether his CA had it half right.

He then approached the Chamber

He then approached the chamber with the portal's rejection texts printed out and one question: how many attempts am I actually entitled to, and does the fee mean I have run out of road?

What follows is his version of events. The portal's own reasoning is the only record of the other side, and it runs to a few impersonal lines.

Key facts first, before the explanation

• The Companies Act, 2013 sets no cap on how many times a promoter may apply for a name.
• What exists is an administrative limit on the MCA portal, with a government fee attached once the free resubmissions are used up.
• Two resubmissions of the name-reservation application are allowed without the resubmission fee. Beyond that, a fee of ₹1,000 applies for each further resubmission, as the MCA fee rules currently stand.
• A reserved name is valid for 20 days from approval for a new company, and 60 days where an existing company is changing its name.
• The grounds on which a name is refused come from Section 4 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014.
• There is no dedicated statutory appeal against a refused name reservation.

Is there a limit on MCA name resubmission?

No. There is no rule that says three attempts and you are barred. Anyone who tells you otherwise is describing the portal, not the statute.

Section 4 of the Companies Act, 2013 lays down what a company may and may not be called. A company cannot be registered with a name identical to, or too nearly resembling, the name of an existing company or LLP, and the Central Government can refuse a name it considers undesirable. The Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 carry the working detail: how names are reserved, how long a reservation lasts, and the grounds on which the Registrar will object.

None of that contains an attempt counter. The counter is a workflow device. The MCA portal processes a name-reservation application through SPICe+ Part A, and the fee structure notified with that workflow is what produces the "government fee before your next try" message. Once the free resubmissions are exhausted, ₹1,000 per resubmission is what you are paying — not a penalty, and not a signal that your application is dead.

The practical consequence is this: you are not blocked. You are being charged, and that charging is a strong hint that the portal has seen the same name come back unchanged.

The Act and the portal are doing two different jobs

The Rules decide whether a name is legally permissible. The portal decides how many times it will let you ask. Promoters conflate the two, then argue about the wrong thing — usually with their chartered accountant, occasionally with the Registrar's sometimes, in an email that nobody at the Registrar's end has time to read.

What makes a name legally unacceptable

Section 4(2) of the Act gives the Registrar two broad grounds of objection. The first is that the proposed name is identical with, or too nearly resembling, the name of an existing company or a limited liability partnership. The second is that it is identical with, or too nearly resembling, a registered trade mark or a trade mark applied for by someone else — unless that person has given a no-objection certificate.

"Too nearly resembling" is not a mechanical test. There is no formula that adds up vowels and consonants. In practice, the registry looks at whether the two names are likely to be confused by a person dealing with either company, and it will read across spelling variants, articles and suffixes. Malhotra Enterprises Private Limited and Malhotra Enterprise Pvt Ltd will not both stand.

Undesirable names under the Rules

Separately from resemblance, the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 list categories of names the Registrar will treat as undesirable. The common ones that catch first-time promoters:

• Names that are too generic, or that merely describe a class of business with nothing distinctive added.
• Names that suggest patronage or connection with the Central or State Government, or with a local authority.
• Names prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
• Names containing regulated words such as Bank, Insurance, Mutual Fund, Chit Fund, Nidhi or Stock Exchange, which need a regulator's clearance before use.
• Names that are offensive, or that carry a meaning the registry regards as undesirable for other reasons.

The Rules also deal with names derived from the names of deceased or living persons, and with cases where a registered proprietor has objected. If your name sits in any of these buckets, resubmitting the same string a fourth time changes nothing.

What happens after a name is actually approved

An approved name is not forever. The reservation holds for 20 days from the date of approval where the reservation is for a new company, and 60 days where an existing company is changing its name. Within those windows the incorporation documents — SPICe+ Part B and the linked forms — have to be filed. Miss the window and the name lapses; you go back to the queue, and you pay again.

For a promoter sitting on a rejected application, this matters in a roundabout way. Every paid resubmission is eating into your own runway. The name was never the expensive part. The delay is.

So how should you actually fix a rejected name?

Stop and read the objection text literally. The portal's phrases are repetitive but they point somewhere specific, and the fix is different depending on which phrase you got.

• "Too nearly resembling" — change the distinctive element, not the suffix. Adding "India" or "Solutions" to a name that already collides rarely helps; the collision is usually in the first or second word.
• Trademark objection — search the trade mark register before your next attempt. If a live mark exists, get an NOC from the proprietor, or pick a different name. Reapplying without the NOC simply produces the same rejection.
• Undesirable or generic — you need a coined or arbitrary element. A descriptive word plus a business-type suffix is exactly what the Rule is designed to refuse.
• Regulated word — get the regulator's letter first. No amount of resubmission substitutes for it.

Then apply once, with the name properly repaired, and attach whatever supporting document the objection calls for — the NOC, the regulator's clearance, the explanation of the coined element. The point of the resubmission fee is to discourage repetition, and it works on the person who repeats.

Is there an appeal against a refused name?

No. There is no statutory appeal against a refusal to reserve a name. Name reservation is an administrative act, and the Rules give the Registrar the discretion to refuse. That is the honest answer, and it is the one nobody wants to hear after three rejections.

What exists instead is a fresh application with a corrected name, and in some cases a written representation to the Registrar explaining why the objection does not apply on the facts. Those representations do get read, but they work only where the objection is factually wrong — for instance, where the cited company is struck off, or where the trade mark cited has lapsed. They do not work as a protest against the discretion itself.

A writ petition against a name refusal is legally possible and, on the facts I have described, almost never worth it. Costs, timelines and the fact that the promoter needs to start a business this year rather than litigate — those decide it. A court may also decline to interfere with an administrative discretion of this kind, and you would have spent months to get back to where a one-week rename would have put you.

Where a portal problem stops being a portal problem

There is one fork worth flagging. If the objection is a mundane resemblance call, you are in company-law territory and the answer is a name change. If, however, the file has moved into allegations of a false declaration, a fabricated document, or the use of a name to induce people to deal with you, the consequences are no longer administrative. Offences relating to false statements in incorporation documents, and the fraud provisions in the Act, carry serious exposure — including for the persons who signed the application.

Nothing in the facts I have suggests that is what happened with Malhotra. His file is three rejection screens and a fee prompt. But promoters who keep resubmitting a name they have been told is a near-match, and who sign fresh declarations each time, should know where the line sits rather than discover it later.

Frequently Asked Questions

What to send us

If you are sitting on rejection screens and you are not sure whether the name can be salvaged, put together a short file and write in. You do not need to prepare a brief.

• The rejection text from each attempt, exactly as the portal printed it.
• The name you applied for and the name currently being cited against it, if the objection names one.
• Two lines of context: what the business will actually do, and whether you already hold any trade mark.
• Any NOC or regulator letter you have, and the date of your last application.

Send that to our contact page or book a slot at /book, and the first thing we will tell you is whether the name can be argued or whether it needs to be changed. Sometimes the answer is that there is nothing to argue and a rename is the whole solution — which is a faster, cheaper result than four more paid resubmissions.

Advocate Sudhir Rao practises criminal defence, cyber crime and economic offences at the Supreme Court of India. Chamber: Lawyers' Chamber, Chamber No. 86, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi – 110001. Phone +91 97295 06771. Email me@sudhirrao.com.

This article is general information about Indian law and is not legal advice on your own situation.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India