https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180 A company petition under sections 397 and 398 must be instituted by a person duly authorised to represent the company, and a director without board authority cannot file it on the company's behalf. The absence of a board resolution or other proof of authority was treated as a defect going to maintainability and not a curable technical irregularity. The consent required under section 399(3) must also be petition-specific, contemporaneous, and show conscious application of mind to the allegations and reliefs actually pursued. A general or unlinked consent was held insufficient, so the petition failed for want of valid authorisation and valid written consent. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:41:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180 A company petition under sections 397 and 398 must be instituted by a person duly authorised to represent the company, and a director without board authority cannot file it on the company's behalf. The absence of a board resolution or other proof of authority was treated as a defect going to maintainability and not a curable technical irregularity. The consent required under section 399(3) must also be petition-specific, contemporaneous, and show conscious application of mind to the allegations and reliefs actually pursued. A general or unlinked consent was held insufficient, so the petition failed for want of valid authorisation and valid written consent. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199180