Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Acknowledgement of Debt
Acknowledgement of Debt
Acknowledgement of Debt
1
Section 18: Effect of acknowledgement in writing
2
Sampuran Singh & Ors. Vs. Niranjan Kaur & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1047
3
Syndicate Bank vs. R. Veeramma (2003) 2 SCC 15
4
Ghulam Murtaza vs Mt. Fasiunnissa Bibi AIR 1935 All 129, 152 Ind Cas 370
5
Ibid
6
Sama Dharman vs. S. Natarajan 2013 ALLMR(Cri) 225
7
State Bank Of India vs Kanahiya Lal & Anr RSA No. 248 / 2015 decided on 2nd May, 2016
8
Jeevraj and Anr. Vs Lalchand and Ors. AIR 1969 Raj 192
9
Ibid
10
Hazara Singh Gujjur Singh vs. Bakhish Singh Mula Singh AIR 1962 Punj 495
11
Pollock & Mulla 'The Indian Contract Act, 1872' 14th Edition Pg. 1398-1399
acknowledgement of liability given by the principal-debtor is binding on the surety, even
though he has not signed the acknowledgements12.
12
Ibid and R. Lilavati vs. Bank of Baroda AIR 1987 Kant 2
13
Sudarshan Cargo Pvt. Ltd vs. M/S Techvac Engineering Pvt Ltd. [C.O.P. No.11/2013 Decided: 25.06.2013]
14
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Cochin Refineries Ltd. 1983 142 ITR 441 Ker
15
Palmer's Company Law, 20th Edn., pp. 367-368
16
Bengal Silk Mills Co. vs Ismail Golam Hossain Arif AIR 1962 Cal 115, 65 CWN 856
17
Vijaya Kumar machinery & Electrical Stores vs. Alaparthi LakshmiKanthamma [1969] 74 ITR 224
18
Babulal Rukmanand vs. Official Liquidator, Bharatpur Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1968 Raj 214
19
Hindustan Apparel Industries vs. Fair Deal Corporation AIR 2000 Guj 261 (FB)
20
C. K. Xavier vs. S. Kasi AIR 1990 Ker 271
made by the mortgagor21. This reflects that an acknowledgement must be made by the
person against whom the liability is sought.
7. An insufficiently stamped document which contains an admission of liability can be
relied upon only for the purpose of extending limitation period22.
There are documents which do not constitute an acknowledgement of liability under the
Limitation Act. Issuance of TDS certificate does not amount to the acknowledgment of
liability23 as TDS certificate is primarily to acknowledge the deduction of tax at source. Also,
C – Forms are not due acknowledgement of debt24 as there is no acknowledgement of a present
and subsisting liability. This is because no intention to acknowledge a liability can be inferred
from the contents of the C form. Also, one cannot establish a jural relation of debtor and
creditor from the contents of the C form. Similarly, a letter in reply to a demand notice cannot
be held as acknowledgment as long as it does not admit the liability.
Conclusion:
Limitation bars the remedy; it does not extinguish the right. Therefore, provisions under section
18 of the Limitation Act aid in restoring such rights.
21
Kanakamma vs. B.Banerjee Babu AIR 2010 Ker 136
22
Kempegowda vs. Mahalingaiah AIR 1972 Mys 152
23
Actal vs. India Infoline Ltd. [Decided on 9.10.2012 Bombay High Court]
24
Taipack Limited and Ors. vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal 2007 (3) ARBLR 402 Delhi
25
Someshwar Nilakhe v/s. Nivrutti Gholave AIR 1973 BOM 147
26
Venkataramayyar v. Kothandaramayyar, [13 Mad. 135]