https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409020 A company suit was validly instituted because a director signed and verified the pleadings under board authorisation, and the company's restoration meant it was treated as continuing in existence under the statutory deeming provision. The absence of a specific challenge to the director's authority also supported maintainability. On title, however, a registered sale deed was not enough where execution was specifically denied. The plaintiff had to prove due execution through admissible evidence, and the failure to examine the scribe or attesting witnesses was material. Mutation entries and limited admissions could not substitute for proof of title. The suit was maintainable, but title to the land was not proved. en-us Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409020 A company suit was validly instituted because a director signed and verified the pleadings under board authorisation, and the company's restoration meant it was treated as continuing in existence under the statutory deeming provision. The absence of a specific challenge to the director's authority also supported maintainability. On title, however, a registered sale deed was not enough where execution was specifically denied. The plaintiff had to prove due execution through admissible evidence, and the failure to examine the scribe or attesting witnesses was material. Mutation entries and limited admissions could not substitute for proof of title. The suit was maintainable, but title to the land was not proved. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409020