https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196537 A suit for refund of the bid amount was held time-barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because limitation ran from the date the forest produce was destroyed by fire, and the suit was filed beyond three years. Section 18 did not save the claim because acknowledgment requires a conscious written admission of the specific subsisting liability claimed. Exhibits B-4 and A-8 dealt only with extension of time and cancellation after default; they did not admit any liability to refund the bid amount. The refund claim therefore failed on limitation, and no extension of time arose from the documents. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:42:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196537 A suit for refund of the bid amount was held time-barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because limitation ran from the date the forest produce was destroyed by fire, and the suit was filed beyond three years. Section 18 did not save the claim because acknowledgment requires a conscious written admission of the specific subsisting liability claimed. Exhibits B-4 and A-8 dealt only with extension of time and cancellation after default; they did not admit any liability to refund the bid amount. The refund claim therefore failed on limitation, and no extension of time arose from the documents. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196537