https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99528 Execution of a pledge agreement was proved by witness evidence, account records and the respondents' failure to deny it effectively, so the pledge was treated as duly executed by the hirer and guarantor. Alleged seizure and sale of the pledged tempo were not proved by independent evidence, so no adjustment of sale proceeds arose. The claim for recovery of loan and interest was held governed by the ordinary limitation period for money recovery, not Article 70 for return of pawned movables or trustee-based limitation. As the claim was filed after expiry of the applicable period, even after exclusion of the winding-up interval, it was barred by limitation. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99528 Execution of a pledge agreement was proved by witness evidence, account records and the respondents' failure to deny it effectively, so the pledge was treated as duly executed by the hirer and guarantor. Alleged seizure and sale of the pledged tempo were not proved by independent evidence, so no adjustment of sale proceeds arose. The claim for recovery of loan and interest was held governed by the ordinary limitation period for money recovery, not Article 70 for return of pawned movables or trustee-based limitation. As the claim was filed after expiry of the applicable period, even after exclusion of the winding-up interval, it was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99528