https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329436 Corporate articles requiring consent of a VC Investor-nominated director before material litigation create a condition precedent to authorising a suit. Absence of the required consent meant that the individual plaintiff lacked authority to institute proceedings for the company, resulting in dismissal of the company's claim. The consent requirement did not constitute an unlawful restraint on legal proceedings because it regulated corporate approval rather than prohibiting litigation, and the statutory rule on contractual restraints was inapplicable to a defamation claim. Following a winding-up order, the Official Liquidator could not retrospectively cure the unauthorised institution of proceedings because the defect was treated as jurisdictional rather than procedural. en-us Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:21:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329436 Corporate articles requiring consent of a VC Investor-nominated director before material litigation create a condition precedent to authorising a suit. Absence of the required consent meant that the individual plaintiff lacked authority to institute proceedings for the company, resulting in dismissal of the company's claim. The consent requirement did not constitute an unlawful restraint on legal proceedings because it regulated corporate approval rather than prohibiting litigation, and the statutory rule on contractual restraints was inapplicable to a defamation claim. Following a winding-up order, the Official Liquidator could not retrospectively cure the unauthorised institution of proceedings because the defect was treated as jurisdictional rather than procedural. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329436