https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285697 A fixed-term deposit was held to become due on its maturity date because the receipt did not show any express or implied agreement that repayment was on demand, so limitation ran from that date. Neither the Board resolution nor the balance-sheet saved limitation, as the resolution referred only to an earlier proposed settlement and the balance-sheet was not proved as a valid acknowledgment of the specific liability. Time spent in liquidation proceedings was also not excluded, since the statutory requirements were not shown. The claim was therefore time-barred and the decree dismissing the suit was sustained. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2020 15:34:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285697 A fixed-term deposit was held to become due on its maturity date because the receipt did not show any express or implied agreement that repayment was on demand, so limitation ran from that date. Neither the Board resolution nor the balance-sheet saved limitation, as the resolution referred only to an earlier proposed settlement and the balance-sheet was not proved as a valid acknowledgment of the specific liability. Time spent in liquidation proceedings was also not excluded, since the statutory requirements were not shown. The claim was therefore time-barred and the decree dismissing the suit was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285697