https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329436 Plaintiff No. 2 lacked the authority to file the suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 as per the Articles of Association, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court emphasized the requirement of VC Investor's consent for litigation, which was not obtained, rendering the suit unauthorized. The court rejected the argument that the Articles of Association were void under the Indian Contract Act, stating they imposed a condition precedent, not an absolute restriction. The Official Liquidator could not cure the lack of consent post-facto, deeming the suit unauthorized and non-est. 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 Plaintiff No. 2 lacked the authority to file the suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 as per the Articles of Association, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The court emphasized the requirement of VC Investor's consent for litigation, which was not obtained, rendering the suit unauthorized. The court rejected the argument that the Articles of Association were void under the Indian Contract Act, stating they imposed a condition precedent, not an absolute restriction. The Official Liquidator could not cure the lack of consent post-facto, deeming the suit unauthorized and non-est. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329436