https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300429 An acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act need not contain an express promise to pay; its validity is tested by the statute's requirements rather than by importing a promise-to-pay element. An acknowledgment that merely admits the correctness of an account does not automatically require a stamp. Liability cannot be acknowledged by a co-defendant for another debtor without authority, and where dealings were shown only with one defendant and no authority or joint-family basis was proved, the acknowledgment could not bind the other defendant. The civil revision was dismissed, and the order was sustained on the facts. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300429 An acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act need not contain an express promise to pay; its validity is tested by the statute's requirements rather than by importing a promise-to-pay element. An acknowledgment that merely admits the correctness of an account does not automatically require a stamp. Liability cannot be acknowledged by a co-defendant for another debtor without authority, and where dealings were shown only with one defendant and no authority or joint-family basis was proved, the acknowledgment could not bind the other defendant. The civil revision was dismissed, and the order was sustained on the facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Aug 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300429