The Amendment Rules have now restricted the number of re-submission opportunities to rectify the defect in the application. Earlier, there was no such restriction, and multiple re-submissions were granted. While the Amendment restricting the re-submission is welcome, as it will expedite the process of disposing of the application, however, it has cast onerous responsibility on the applicant to ensure that the application is complete in all respect at first hand to avoid any delays and lacunas. It would also be fair to expect that the authorities should not come up with onerous requirements that are not expressly required under the statute as that would result in abuse of process. In practice, this holds true in the case of foreign companies who wish to strike-off their non-operational subsidiaries, and any unforeseen defect may lead to protracting of the timeline as foreign documents need to be legalized. Also, the modification to form on the ground of failure to bring subscription money is in line with the statute. However, a similar amendment should also be made for an affidavit to be given by the applicant, as such an affidavit does not reflect this additional ground. In practice, it is experienced that no form (including a form for application to remove the name of the company) can be filed unless subscription money is brought in. Thus, there remains an apparent contradiction between statutory provisions due to a technical roadblock and interpretational issues.