https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293660 An endorsement on a chitty amount did not revive a claim already barred by limitation. An acknowledgment under Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act was ineffective because it was made after limitation had expired. The alternative argument that the endorsement constituted an account stated under Article 52 also failed, because a settled account cannot revive a wholly time-barred demand unless it amounts to a fresh enforceable promise. Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act required a written and signed promise to pay a barred debt, and the endorsement did not satisfy that requirement. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:52:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293660 An endorsement on a chitty amount did not revive a claim already barred by limitation. An acknowledgment under Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act was ineffective because it was made after limitation had expired. The alternative argument that the endorsement constituted an account stated under Article 52 also failed, because a settled account cannot revive a wholly time-barred demand unless it amounts to a fresh enforceable promise. Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act required a written and signed promise to pay a barred debt, and the endorsement did not satisfy that requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293660