Big MCA Change: Govt Companies Face New Indemnity Bond Rule for Strike-Off:

MCA has amended the rules for striking off companies, introducing a mandatory indemnity bond requirement for government companies. Know what has changed and its compliance impact.
MCA Brings Changes to Removal of Company Names Rules, 2016

Big MCA Change: Govt Companies Face New Indemnity Bond Rule for Strike-Off
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has released an Official Notification dated December 31, 2025, informing amendments to the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016.
Key Update
For Government Companies (including subsidiaries), the Indemnity Bond (Form STK-3A), which is normally signed by the directors can now be signed by an authorised representative of the Central/State Government.
The authorised representative must be not below the rank of Under Secretary (or equivalent) in the concerned Ministry/Department.
This change applies specifically when such companies apply for removal of their name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Amendment takes effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette (31 Dec 2025).
The following are the changes introduced in the same:
- The amended rules will now be called the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Amendment Rules, 2025.
- The amendments notified in the notification have already come into effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, i.e., December 31, 2025.
- After the proviso, in sub-rule (3), rule 4 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, the following proviso has been added:
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2701My Recent Articles
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
- ITAT Restores Appeal Over Rs 9.33 Crore Section 68 Share Application Addition After DTVSV Payment FailurePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…








