Written acknowledgment and part payment extend limitation and remove presentment necessity for demand notes.

Competency to present a payment application was upheld where a bank acting as liquidator authorised its manager and engaged an advocate; a formal omission of capacity did not invalidate presentation. A written admission by the debtor together with a subsequent credit to the note account constituted a written acknowledgment/part payment sufficient to extend the limitation period. Presentment for payment was unnecessary to charge the maker because the instrument was payable on demand and statutory provision removing presentment applied. The payment order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed on these grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for a payment order was made by persons competent to present it on behalf of the liquidator; (ii) Whether the claim was barred by limitation or was saved by a written acknowledgment/part payment; (iii) Whether presentment for payment was necessary to charge the maker of the promissory note payable at a specified place or on demand.

Issue (i): Competency of persons presenting the application on behalf of the liquidator.

Analysis: The bank had been appointed and acted as liquidator; a directors' resolution authorised the manager to manage liquidation work and sign liquidation documents; the manager's signature omitted capacity in form but was subsequently clarified; the application was presented through an advocate duly authorised by the liquidators.

Conclusion: The application was presented by persons competent to act for the liquidator; the formal defect in describing capacity did not vitiate the proceeding.

Issue (ii): Effect of the written document and credited amount on limitation-whether it constituted an acknowledgment or part payment under limitation law.

Analysis: A document dated 28 Feb 1931 and subsequent crediting of Rs.16,000 to the promissory note account were relied upon as an acknowledgment of liability and as part payment; the written acknowledgment need not specify the exact remaining amount due so long as it acknowledges liability in writing signed by the debtor; the credit was recorded when mutation was sanctioned and was treated as the operative date for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The written document and the credited amount constituted an acknowledgement/part payment sufficient to extend the period under Section 19 of the Limitation Act; the claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Necessity of presentment for payment to charge the maker of the promissory note payable at a specified place or on demand.

Analysis: Evidence supported that the instrument was presented for payment; the instrument was found to be payable on demand and, in any event, Section 76(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act removes the necessity of presentment in the circumstances found; the factual findings on presentment were accepted.

Conclusion: Presentment was not required to charge the maker in the circumstances; the payment order could validly be made.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the payment order affirmed; the substantive issues of competency to present the application, limitation by acknowledgment/part payment, and presentment were decided against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A written acknowledgment signed by the debtor and a subsequent credited part payment can extend limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act; where a promissory note is payable on demand and circumstances fit Section 76(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, presentment for payment is not necessary to hold the maker liable.

---