https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294495 The High Court allowed the defendants' appeal, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the outstanding amount due to lack of proof of debt and being barred by limitation. The court found that the defendants did not acknowledge the liability within the limitation period, and the compromise decree did not constitute acknowledgment under the Limitation Act. Additionally, the plaintiff's reliance on account entries alone was insufficient to prove the debt, leading to the dismissal of the suit. en-us Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294495 The High Court allowed the defendants' appeal, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the outstanding amount due to lack of proof of debt and being barred by limitation. The court found that the defendants did not acknowledge the liability within the limitation period, and the compromise decree did not constitute acknowledgment under the Limitation Act. Additionally, the plaintiff's reliance on account entries alone was insufficient to prove the debt, leading to the dismissal of the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294495