https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300020 A recovery suit was held time-barred because the invoices predated the filing by more than the ordinary limitation period, and no saving provision applied. Consent terms and the consent order did not amount to a valid acknowledgment under section 18, as they did not clearly admit subsisting liability before expiry of limitation; the deposit made under them was treated only as compliance. The court also held that limitation could not be waived or defeated by estoppel once the statutory bar operated. Time spent in winding-up proceedings was not excludable under sections 14 or 15, so the claim remained barred. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jan 2022 09:48:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300020 A recovery suit was held time-barred because the invoices predated the filing by more than the ordinary limitation period, and no saving provision applied. Consent terms and the consent order did not amount to a valid acknowledgment under section 18, as they did not clearly admit subsisting liability before expiry of limitation; the deposit made under them was treated only as compliance. The court also held that limitation could not be waived or defeated by estoppel once the statutory bar operated. Time spent in winding-up proceedings was not excludable under sections 14 or 15, so the claim remained barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300020