Company name display: an external, clearly legible office board visible from a common landing meets statutory painting/affixing requirements.

The note addresses whether a company satisfies the statutory requirement that its name be "painted or affixed" on the outside of its office when a board bearing the name is fixed on the wall opposite the landing outside the office room and is readily visible. It applies strict construction for penal provisions and emphasises the provision's object-to give notice of limited liability-concluding that a board of adequate conspicuousness and legibility outside the office room meets the literal requirement even within a multi-occupant premises, and that an additional board at the compound gate is not required; the conviction under the related penal provision could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purposes of section 73(a) of the Indian Companies Act, a board bearing the company's name fixed on the wall opposite the landing outside the office room (and visible to anyone who ascends to the office) satisfies the statutory requirement that the name be "painted or affixed, and kept painted or affixed, on the outside of every office or place in which its business is carried on, in a conspicuous position, in letters easily legible and in English characters".

Analysis: The provision is penal and must be construed strictly; its words require the name to be painted or affixed on the outside of the office or place where the business is carried on. The object of the provision, as reflected in authoritative commentary, is to ensure that companies continually bring to the notice of those who deal or might deal with them the fact of limited liability, not to serve as an instrument for advertising the whereabouts of the office. Where an office is within a building or premises, a board of adequate conspicuousness and legibility outside the office room itself will satisfy the literal words of the section. The fact that the premises form a compound does not, in principle, require an additional board at the compound gate. The factual finding that a small board was fixed opposite the landing outside the office and that its letters were large enough to be read with ease indicates compliance with the statutory requirements of conspicuousness and legibility.

Conclusion: The board on the landing outside the office satisfied the requirements of section 73(a); the conviction under section 74(1) could not be sustained. Conclusion in favour of the appellant.

---