The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a $500,000 promissory note and dismiss a counterclaim.
The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred and asserted that the loan was actually an advance against partnership profits.
The court held that the promissory note constituted a demand obligation, such that the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 2002 began to run only when demand for payment was made.
The court rejected attempts to introduce parol evidence contradicting the clear written terms of the promissory note and found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the validity of the debt.
Summary judgment was granted on the promissory note, but the counterclaim was permitted to proceed.
