https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110304 Registered lease deeds, later conveyance and confirmation instruments, and city survey records showed that City Survey No. 132 formed part of the company's leasehold, so the applicant's boundary-based claim to exclusive title failed. The delayed assertion of ownership and possession did not displace the consistent documentary record, and the claim was rejected in favour of the Official Liquidator. The Prant Officer's cancellation of the revenue entry was unsustainable because the appeal was time-barred, no basis for condonation was recorded, Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not complied with, the Official Liquidator was not impleaded, and the company application was not disclosed. The revenue order was quashed. en-us Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:05:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110304 Registered lease deeds, later conveyance and confirmation instruments, and city survey records showed that City Survey No. 132 formed part of the company's leasehold, so the applicant's boundary-based claim to exclusive title failed. The delayed assertion of ownership and possession did not displace the consistent documentary record, and the claim was rejected in favour of the Official Liquidator. The Prant Officer's cancellation of the revenue entry was unsustainable because the appeal was time-barred, no basis for condonation was recorded, Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not complied with, the Official Liquidator was not impleaded, and the company application was not disclosed. The revenue order was quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110304