https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276919 An endorsed part-payment that was signed but not in the debtor's handwriting did not satisfy the amended handwriting requirement under Section 20 to revive a debt already barred before the amendment took effect, because a procedural change does not revive an unenforceable claim absent clear legislative intent. The same endorsement, however, contained a sufficient admission of the balance due and could operate as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 on the principles applicable to the repealed provision. The suit dismissal was therefore not disturbed on the ground that the endorsement was ineffective. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:20:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276919 An endorsed part-payment that was signed but not in the debtor's handwriting did not satisfy the amended handwriting requirement under Section 20 to revive a debt already barred before the amendment took effect, because a procedural change does not revive an unenforceable claim absent clear legislative intent. The same endorsement, however, contained a sufficient admission of the balance due and could operate as an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 on the principles applicable to the repealed provision. The suit dismissal was therefore not disturbed on the ground that the endorsement was ineffective. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Nov 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276919