https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290238 Ex.A.1 was treated as a written acknowledgment signed within the original limitation period, so it attracted a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ex.A.3 was conditional, because repayment was promised only after receipt of money from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and therefore it did not satisfy the requirement of an express, written, signed and unconditional promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The first appellate court had misconstrued both documents, giving rise to a substantial question of law in second appeal. The decree was unsustainable because the suit was still filed beyond the fresh limitation period. 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 Ex.A.1 was treated as a written acknowledgment signed within the original limitation period, so it attracted a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ex.A.3 was conditional, because repayment was promised only after receipt of money from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and therefore it did not satisfy the requirement of an express, written, signed and unconditional promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The first appellate court had misconstrued both documents, giving rise to a substantial question of law in second appeal. The decree was unsustainable because the suit was still filed beyond the fresh limitation period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290238