https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280983 A without prejudice letter that merely stated a claim would be examined did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability under the Limitation Act, because it contained no clear admission of a present subsisting obligation or jural relationship; limitation was therefore not extended and the suit was time-barred. The notice requirement for a railway freight claim was treated as satisfied where the claim was made to a competent railway officer who was shown to have been authorised to receive and deal with such claims, and the correspondence showed that the matter was entertained and investigated. en-us Wed, 05 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2019 18:05:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280983 A without prejudice letter that merely stated a claim would be examined did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability under the Limitation Act, because it contained no clear admission of a present subsisting obligation or jural relationship; limitation was therefore not extended and the suit was time-barred. The notice requirement for a railway freight claim was treated as satisfied where the claim was made to a competent railway officer who was shown to have been authorised to receive and deal with such claims, and the correspondence showed that the matter was entertained and investigated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280983