https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290238 The court found that the document in question did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act as it contained a conditional promise to pay. Additionally, the suit was barred by limitation as the acknowledgment was made beyond the prescribed period for instituting a suit. Consequently, the court set aside the decree based on the documents in question, restored the initial judgment and decree, and allowed the Second Appeal without costs. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:04:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290238 The court found that the document in question did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act as it contained a conditional promise to pay. Additionally, the suit was barred by limitation as the acknowledgment was made beyond the prescribed period for instituting a suit. Consequently, the court set aside the decree based on the documents in question, restored the initial judgment and decree, and allowed the Second Appeal without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290238