2007 (2) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement thereon allegedly made on behalf of the company did not constitute a promise to pay within the meaning of section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872 and since such writing was admittedly executed after the original debt was barred by limitation, the acknowledgment would not save limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The other, if slightly more feeble, ground urged was that the accountant who appears to have admitted and acknowledged on behalf of the company, had no authority to do so. The letter that has been relied upon is one addressed by the petitioner to the company on September 28, 2004. The petitioner requested the company to confirm that a sum of Rs. 13,79,300 was due and owing from the company to the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gest that section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872 does not require such a strict interpretation. The petitioner has relied on a judgment of this court in Ashoka Agencies and Business Forms Ltd., In re [1999] 95 Comp. Cas. 172 and another judgment reported at Shanti Parkash v. Harnam Das, AIR 1938 Lahore 234, which has been noticed in the Calcutta judgment. The writing which was claimed to be the promise in terms of section 25(3) in that Calcutta Ashoka Agencies and Business Forms Ltd., In re [1999] 95 Comp. Cas. 172 (Cal)), was a confirmation of accounts and went on the following lines (page 176) : "This is with reference to your letter dated June 30, 1992. We hereby confirm that our books of account show a credit balance of Rs. 24,32....