https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96946 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). en-us Mon, 28 Oct 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:09:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96946 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). Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Oct 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96946