https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98335 Acknowledgments that extend limitation must be made by a person with authority to bind the principal; exploratory, item wise correspondence seeking clarification does not constitute a binding acknowledgment, and a company secretary's routine letters without proved special authority or subsequent ratification by the board cannot operate to extend limitation. Consequently the April 16, 1946 communication was not an acknowledgment sufficient to extend the limitation period, the secretary lacked authority to bind the corporation, and decrees founded on that alleged acknowledgment cannot be sustained. en-us Thu, 19 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:55:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98335 Acknowledgments that extend limitation must be made by a person with authority to bind the principal; exploratory, item wise correspondence seeking clarification does not constitute a binding acknowledgment, and a company secretary's routine letters without proved special authority or subsequent ratification by the board cannot operate to extend limitation. Consequently the April 16, 1946 communication was not an acknowledgment sufficient to extend the limitation period, the secretary lacked authority to bind the corporation, and decrees founded on that alleged acknowledgment cannot be sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98335