Acknowledgment of liability and instalment default can extend limitation and support only limited relief in winding-up matters.

A written acknowledgment of liability made before expiry of limitation renews the limitation period under the Limitation Act, and a debtor's agreed instalment plan can revive the cause of action on default of each instalment. On the stated facts, claims tied to instalments due in September 1998, December 1998 and January 1999 were time-barred when the petition was filed, but the February 1999 instalment remained within limitation. The commentary also notes that winding-up jurisdiction is not a substitute for debt recovery where there is a bona fide dispute, yet admitted liability may justify limited monetary relief while coercive winding-up steps are kept in abeyance pending compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the winding-up petition was barred by limitation, including the effect of acknowledgment of liability under the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the admitted debt justified winding-up relief and, if not, what limited relief was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the winding-up petition was barred by limitation, including the effect of acknowledgment of liability under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The admitted correspondence showed repeated acknowledgments of the liability before expiry of the original limitation period. A written and signed acknowledgment made before limitation expires attracts Section 18 and starts a fresh period of limitation from the date of acknowledgment. Where the debtor also promises payment on future instalment dates and the creditor accepts that arrangement, the cause of action revives on the first default of the agreed instalment. On that basis, claims relating to the instalments payable in September 1998, December 1998, and January 1999 had become time-barred by the date of filing, but the claim relating to the instalment promised for February 1999 remained within limitation when the petition was instituted.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation in respect of three instalments, but not in respect of the February 1999 instalment; the objection of total limitation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the admitted debt justified winding-up relief and, if not, what limited relief was warranted.

Analysis: Winding-up jurisdiction cannot be used as a debt-recovery mechanism where the debt is bona fide disputed, but the material on record showed repeated admissions of liability and no credible contemporaneous dispute regarding delay or quality of the goods. At the same time, the company's stated financial health and running business weighed against immediate coercive winding-up steps. The appropriate course was to secure payment of the admitted amount while keeping further winding-up measures in abeyance, with liberty to seek further directions on default.

Conclusion: Limited monetary relief was granted in respect of the admitted debt, while coercive winding-up steps were withheld for the time being.

Final Conclusion: The petition resulted in partial relief to the creditor by securing payment of the admitted outstanding amount, while the broader request for winding-up consequences was deferred pending compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A written acknowledgment of liability made before expiry of limitation gives rise to a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and where payment is promised in instalments, default on the agreed date revives the cause of action only to the extent of that defaulted instalment.

---