None identified. No cases contain keywords or phrases (e.g., "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated") indicating they have been treated as bad law.
None. No cases contain keywords or phrases (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned") indicating clear judicial treatment patterns.
All cases are uncertain due to the absence of any keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment patterns. Specific explanations:
Probodh Kumar Das VS Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. - 1934 0 Supreme(Cal) 213: No treatment indicators present; entry consists solely of a statement of legal principle ("The failure to perform the most important condition of a contract can discharge a guarantor from their guarantee. Additionally, a variation of the contract terms can also discharge a guarantor from their guarantee.").
RADHA KANTA PAL VS UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD. - 1954 0 Supreme(Cal) 173: No treatment indicators present; entry consists solely of a statement of legal principle ("The continued employment of a dishonest servant without notice to the guarantor discharges the guarantor, but only if the eventual remedy of the guarantor against the principal debtor is impaired.").
BISHWANATH AGARWALA VS BANK OF INDIA - 2005 0 Supreme(Jhk) 21: No treatment indicators present; entry consists solely of a statement of legal principle ("The liability of the guarantor is limited to the agreed cash credit facility amount, and the guarantor is not bound by the over-drawals allowed by the plaintiff-Bank and made by the principal debtor.").
State Of Maharashtra VS M. N. Kaul - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 98: No treatment indicators present; entry consists solely of a statement of legal principle ("A guarantor cannot be made liable beyond the terms of his engagement, and a guarantee cannot be enforced beyond the time limit specified in the guarantee.").
Syndicate Bank VS Channaveerappa Beleri - 2006 5 Supreme 115: No treatment indicators present; entry consists solely of a statement of legal principle ("When the demand is made against the guarantor, if the claim is a live claim against the principal debtor, limitation in respect of the guarantor will run from the date of such demand and refusal/non-compliance.").
Back
Next 
B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) Through Legal Representatives – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.10.1993, M/s Darshak Trading Company, respondent No.6 herein, obtained a cash-credit facility for withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) as a loan from Bhagyalakshmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., the appellant herein. Mercantile goods belonging to respondent No.6 were hypothecated to the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, stood as guarantors/sureties for the said loan obtained by respondent No.6 and executed contracts of guarantee in favour of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.6 in connivance with some officers employed by the appellant withdrew amounts far in excess of the Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) that had been sanctioned.
1.1 Respondent No.6 defaulted in repaying the loan to the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant filed Lavad Suit No.181/1995 before the Board of Nominees, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.26,95,196.75/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs, Ninety-Five Thousands, One Hundred Ninety-Six and Seventy-Five Paise Only) along with interest from respo
(1) Liability of Surety – Liability of surety is co-extensive with that of principal-debtor, unless contract of guarantee provides otherwise – Liability of surety extends only to what contract he gua....
A surety is not discharged unless the creditor's wrongful act or negligence can be proven to have caused the loss of security.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the creditor's act or omission impairing the surety's eventual remedy against the principal borrower can discharge the surety from liability, ....
The liability of sureties remains despite the dismissal of a suit against the principal borrower if the creditor's rights are intact.
The court emphasized the principle of estoppel and the co-extensive liability of the surety with the principal debtor. It also highlighted the requirements for realizing a loan from a surety.
The surety's liability persists despite creditor actions that do not impair the security, as established in the guarantee deed.
The liability of the surety/guarantor/indemnifier is co-extensive with the principal debtor and is governed by the same provisions of the Contract Act and the Limitation Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article