https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291851 A company need not be struck off as plaintiff where the alleged wrongful and fraudulent acts are attributed to its controlling directors and the shareholders' majority supports continuation of the suit in the company's name. The text explains that, although a company ordinarily sues through proper human agency, that principle does not require removal of the company as plaintiff when the directors whose conduct is challenged are unwilling to proceed. It also notes that the objection under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC failed because the person acting for the company asserted that he remained a director competent to depose to the facts. The suit was therefore maintainable in its present form. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291851 A company need not be struck off as plaintiff where the alleged wrongful and fraudulent acts are attributed to its controlling directors and the shareholders' majority supports continuation of the suit in the company's name. The text explains that, although a company ordinarily sues through proper human agency, that principle does not require removal of the company as plaintiff when the directors whose conduct is challenged are unwilling to proceed. It also notes that the objection under Order 29 Rule 1 CPC failed because the person acting for the company asserted that he remained a director competent to depose to the facts. The suit was therefore maintainable in its present form. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Jul 1947 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291851