Limitation for managing agency remuneration failed where section 14 and section 19 of the Limitation Act did not save the claim.

A claim for managing agency remuneration beyond the three-year limitation period was held barred because exclusion under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act was unavailable where the earlier suit was on a different cause of action and had been decided on the merits, not dismissed for defect of jurisdiction or a similar cause. The remuneration claim was treated as a simple money claim, and the managing agency clause did not create any charge over company assets. Reliance on section 19 also failed because the alleged acknowledgment was signed by the appellant himself and did not show that he was duly authorised to acknowledge the company's liability on its behalf.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's claim for managing agency remuneration for the period beyond three years before winding up was saved by exclusion of time under section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act or by an acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Analysis: Section 14 was inapplicable because the earlier suit was not founded on the same cause of action and was not dismissed for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause; it was tried on the merits. The claim for remuneration was only a simple money claim, and the managing agency clause did not create any charge over the company's assets for remuneration due. Exhibit A-4, though listing the amount as due, was signed by the appellant himself and did not show that he was acting as an authorised agent of the company for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of the company's liability. A valid acknowledgment under section 19 requires a signature by a person duly authorised on behalf of the debtor, and that requirement was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The claim beyond the three-year period was barred by limitation and the appellant could not rely on either section 14 or section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act.

---