https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331713 A recovery suit on a loan was held time-barred because the three-year limitation period had expired without any post-disbursement payment or written acknowledgement of liability. Demand notices alone did not extend limitation, and Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only where part-payment is made before expiry of the prescribed period. The asserted continuing guarantee was not supported by evidence and was insufficient to constitute acknowledgement of debt. The limitation objection therefore succeeded, and the suit remained barred. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331713 A recovery suit on a loan was held time-barred because the three-year limitation period had expired without any post-disbursement payment or written acknowledgement of liability. Demand notices alone did not extend limitation, and Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only where part-payment is made before expiry of the prescribed period. The asserted continuing guarantee was not supported by evidence and was insufficient to constitute acknowledgement of debt. The limitation objection therefore succeeded, and the suit remained barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331713