Class rights challenge required prior written authority at filing; later approval could not cure the defect.

An applicant challenging a variation of class rights under section 61(2) of the Companies Act, 1929 had to possess the necessary title to sue when the petition was presented: either a personal holding of the required 15% class interest or prior written authority from shareholders representing that interest. Later-acquired or uncommunicated authority was ineffective, because the statutory mandate required the petitioner to be duly authorised at the start of proceedings. The seven-day period was treated as peremptory, so a petition lacking authority at inception could not be cured by subsequent steps. The petition was therefore liable to be struck out for non-compliance with section 61(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether an applicant challenging a variation of class rights under section 61(2) of the Companies Act, 1929 must, at the time of presenting the petition, already hold the requisite statutory authority in writing from shareholders representing not less than 15 per cent of the class affected.

Analysis: The statutory right to apply was treated as a matter of title to sue. The section required that the petitioner either personally held the necessary 15 per cent interest or was already appointed in writing by the necessary qualified shareholders before the petition was presented. A later-acquired or uncommunicated authority was insufficient, because the statutory mandate contemplated that the petitioner must be clothed with authority when proceedings were instituted. The seven-day period was regarded as peremptory and the petition, lacking authority at inception, could not be cured by later steps.

Conclusion: The petition failed to satisfy section 61(2) at the date of presentation and was liable to be struck out. The determination was against the petitioner and in favour of the company.

---