https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175721 A time-barred loan claim could not be enforced through revenue recovery because the demand was raised after limitation had expired. A later letter from the debtors did not revive the claim under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since an acknowledgment must be made before expiry of limitation. It also did not amount to a valid promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it contained a denial of liability, only a conditional proposal, and no concluded agreement to pay the barred debt. The coercive recovery action under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, was therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:07:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175721 A time-barred loan claim could not be enforced through revenue recovery because the demand was raised after limitation had expired. A later letter from the debtors did not revive the claim under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since an acknowledgment must be made before expiry of limitation. It also did not amount to a valid promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as it contained a denial of liability, only a conditional proposal, and no concluded agreement to pay the barred debt. The coercive recovery action under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175721