https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305078 The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation due to the acknowledgment of liability in Ext. A8. It found that all defendants were not liable for the promissory note amounts as the notes did not sufficiently disclose the firm's liability. Consequently, only defendants 1 and 2 were held liable for specific amounts. The 1st defendant was decreed for amounts covered by Exts. A1 to A4, and the 1st and 2nd defendants for the amount covered by Ext. A5. The 1st defendant's appeal failed, the 3rd defendant's appeal succeeded, and the 2nd defendant's appeal succeeded in part, with each party bearing their own costs. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 12:11:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305078 The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation due to the acknowledgment of liability in Ext. A8. It found that all defendants were not liable for the promissory note amounts as the notes did not sufficiently disclose the firm's liability. Consequently, only defendants 1 and 2 were held liable for specific amounts. The 1st defendant was decreed for amounts covered by Exts. A1 to A4, and the 1st and 2nd defendants for the amount covered by Ext. A5. The 1st defendant's appeal failed, the 3rd defendant's appeal succeeded, and the 2nd defendant's appeal succeeded in part, with each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305078