9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether an endorsement on a pronote showing part payment and extending the period of limitation could be construed as a "promise" under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act? Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff claimed a certain amount from the defendant based on two pronotes and part payments made by the defendant. The defendant argued that the suit claim was time-barred, and the endorsements made on the pronotes did not extend the period of limitation. The court examined the records and the contentions raised by both parties. 2. The court noted that the endorsements on the pronotes contained acknowledgments and part payments made by the defendant towards the debt owed to the plaintiff. However, these endorsements were made after the expiry of the limitation period. The court considered whether these acknowledgments and part payments could still assist the plaintiff in extending the limitation period under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act. 3. Acknowledgment of liability signifies an admission of one's own liability to pay a debt. The court referred to legal precedents to explain that an acknowledgment, if coupled with a promise to pay, can be considered a valid agreement under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting acknowledgments liberally to understand the intent behind them. 4. The court highlighted the distinction between an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and a promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. While an acknowledgment must be made before the expiry of the limitation period, a promise can be made even after the limitation period has expired. The court discussed various scenarios where acknowledgments or part payments could be construed as promises to pay the debt. 5. Referring to Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, the court outlined the requirements for a promise to pay a time-barred debt, including that the promise must be in writing and signed by the debtor or their authorized agent. The court analyzed whether the endorsements in the case fulfilled the criteria of a promise under the said section. 6. The court observed that the determination of whether the endorsements on the pronotes constituted a promise to pay required a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances, which could only be done during a trial. The court referred to a previous decision where the court held that an endorsement must contain an express promise to pay to qualify as a promise under Section 25(3) of the Act. 7. Ultimately, the court concluded that the question of whether the endorsements amounted to a promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act could only be decided after evidence was presented during the trial. The court rejected the petition, stating that there was no error in the impugned order to interfere at that stage, emphasizing the need for a trial to ascertain the true intention behind the endorsements.
|
