A creditor may enforce a guarantee directly against a surety upon the principal debtor's default, regardless of the debtor's death. The liability of the surety remains co-extensive and immediate, and the creditor is not required to exhaust recovery remedies against the debtor's estate first.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. M. A. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action of the respondent-Bank in placing a hold/freezing the petitioner’s salary account and has prayed for issuance of appropriate directions for removal of such hold and restoration of normal operation of the said account.

3. The facts giving rise to the present proceeding are not substantially in dispute.

The borrower, namely, late Azahar Ali, had availed a personal loan from the respondent-Bank. The petitioner admittedly stood as a guarantor in respect of the said loan transaction. Pursuant thereto, the borrower and the petitioner executed the requisite loan and guarantee documents in favour of the respondent-Bank.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the borrower expired on 05.05.2023. Following the death of the borrower, the loan account allegedly became irregular and an outstanding liability accrued against the loan account. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank issued a demand notice dated 05.05.2025 calling upon the petitioner, in his capacity as guarantor, to liquidate the outstanding dues.

5. According to the petitioner, subsequently a communication was received from the respondent-Bank intimating that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been kept under hold in the petitioner’s account. The petitioner claims to have approached the Bank for removal of such hold and also caused a legal notice to be issued through his learned counsel. Since the account continued to remain under hold, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

6. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the action of the respondent-Bank is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. According to him, the borrower having expired, the respondent-Bank ought to have proceeded against the estate and legal representatives of the deceased borrower before taking coercive action against the petitioner.

7. It is further contended that the petitioner is merely a guarantor and the respondent-Bank could not have directly frozen or placed a hold over the petitioner’s salary account without first exhausting remedies available against the principal borrower or his estate.

8. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent-Bank has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the account in question is a salary account from which the petitioner meets his day-to-day expenses and family obligations.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioner is willing to settle the outstanding liability and, therefore, the respondent-Bank ought to have considered such request instead of continuing with the impugned action.

10. Per contra, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, submits that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner stood as a guarantor in