https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247051 A procedural omission in proving corporate authorisation was treated as curable, so complaints and appeals should not be rejected solely on that ground when the underlying claim remains in dispute. The Court emphasised that a party should ordinarily be given an opportunity to place and prove the authorisation on record before proceedings are terminated, especially where the matter concerns public money. The rejection for want of authorisation was therefore not sustained, and the matters were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh trial after permitting proof of authorisation. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247051 A procedural omission in proving corporate authorisation was treated as curable, so complaints and appeals should not be rejected solely on that ground when the underlying claim remains in dispute. The Court emphasised that a party should ordinarily be given an opportunity to place and prove the authorisation on record before proceedings are terminated, especially where the matter concerns public money. The rejection for want of authorisation was therefore not sustained, and the matters were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh trial after permitting proof of authorisation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247051