Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.22 seconds)Section 25 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ganga Ram Agarwalla And Anr. vs Lachi Ram Kishen Dyal on 28 July, 1914
16. The only case which requires examination and which appears to be in conflict with the view I am disposed to take is Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal [1901] 23 All. 502. In that case
the defendant having examined his account acknowledged a balance of Rs. 549-11-0 to be due by him and affixed his signature to the plaintiff's account book. Allowing for sums since received and adding interest to the balance the plaintiff claimed Rs. 508-11-0 stating that the cause of action accrued on 21st July 1897.
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maniram vs Seth Rupchand on 25 May, 1906
The Privy Council case Maniram Seth v. Seth Bupchand [1906] 33 Cal. 1047, which had since been reported and the cases of this Court, to which reference has already been made were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Gobind Das And Ors. vs Sabju Das on 18 February, 1908
15. The case of Gobind Das v. Sarju Das [1908] 30 All. 268 is authority only for the proposition that the promise in writing to pay a time-barred debt, as contemplated by Section 25, Contract Act, should be an express promise and that a promise implied in an acknowledgment of a time-barred debt is not enough. The result is that a time-barred debt is a valid consideration for a bond or a promissory note in which there is an express promise to pay but is no good consideration for an acknowledgment of the kind to which Article 1, Section 1, Stamp Act, relates, which cannot contain an express promise to pay, otherwise the stamp of one anna, provided for by the aforesaid article, will not be enough. The case referred to above is no authority for the proposition that an unconditional acknowledgment does not imply a promise to pay or that it cannot be the basis of a suit even though the parties intended that it should be evidence of the amount due on its date from one to the other. This case might have been applicable to the present case if it could be said that the acknowledgment, now in question, as made in respect of a time-barred debt and was therefore without valid consideration; but, as already said, such a plea has not been raised in this case, and it be entertained at this stage, sufficient opportunity should be afforded to the plaintiff to establish by evidence (which would include the recitals contained in the acknowledgment) that the debt was not barred by limitation and could form a valid consideration of the acknowledgment.
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Govind Singh vs Bijay Bahadur Singh on 24 July, 1929
As against it reference may be made to Govind Singh v. Bijay Bahadur Singh A.I.R. 1929 All. 980, decided by this very Bench.