Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. VS HUBTOWN LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Syndicate Bank VS Channaveerappa Beleri...
Syndicate Bank VS Channaveerappa Beleri - 2006 5 Supreme 115 : Yes, there is a clear distinction between the invocation of a guarantee deed and the actual demand notice issued to the personal guarantor by the creditor. The guarantee deed itself creates the contractual obligation, but the liability of the guarantor arises only upon a valid demand made by the creditor. According to the judgment, where the guarantee specifies that the guarantor is liable ''''on demand'''', the demand is a condition precedent to the guarantor''''s liability. The demand must be for a sum that is legally due and recoverable from the principal debtor. The right to sue the guarantor accrues only when such a demand is made and subsequently refused or not complied with. Therefore, the invocation of the guarantee deed (i.e., the existence of the contract) is not the same as the actual demand notice, which triggers the commencement of limitation and the enforceability of the guarantor''''s liability.Checking relevance for Lalit Kumar Jain VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. VS Bishwanath Jhunjhunwala...
Checking relevance for Vineet Saraf VS Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Narendra Singh Panwar VS Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited...
Checking relevance for PRASHANT SHASHI RUIA VS STATE BANK OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for Jayanta Khaund VS Assam Power Distribution Company Limited [APDCL]...
Checking relevance for Reliance Infrastructure Limited VS NLC India Limited...
Checking relevance for BANK OF BARODA, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies VS SHREE MOTI INDUSTRIES...
BANK OF BARODA, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies VS SHREE MOTI INDUSTRIES - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 696 : The legal documents distinguish between the invocation of a guarantee deed and the issuance of a demand notice to a personal guarantor. Specifically, the documents state that the liability of a continuing guarantor does not arise without evidence of the dispatch or receipt of a demand notice. The photocopy of a legal notice was produced but lacked the advocate''''s signature, which rendered the demand unproved. This indicates that the demand notice is a separate and distinct requirement from the mere existence or invocation of the guarantee deed. Therefore, the invocation of the guarantee deed and the actual issuance of a demand notice are not the same; the latter is a necessary procedural step to trigger the guarantor''''s liability, and its absence defeats the claim even if the guarantee deed exists.Checking relevance for Vinitec Electronics Private limited VS HCL Infosystems Limited...
Checking relevance for Patheja Brothers Forgings And Stamping VS I. C. I. C. I. LTD. ...
Checking relevance for United Bank of India VS Satyawati Tondon...
United Bank of India VS Satyawati Tondon - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 615 : Yes, there is a clear distinction between the invocation of a personal guarantee deed and the issuance of a demand notice to the personal guarantor. The invocation of the guarantee deed is not automatic upon default by the principal borrower; rather, the creditor must issue a formal demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the guarantor. The legal documents confirm that the creditor can proceed against the guarantor independently of any action taken against the principal borrower. Specifically, Paragraph 14 states that ''''Creditor can recover loan from surety or guarantor even without making efforts for recovering the dues from borrower'''' and that the liability of the guarantor and principal debtor is co-extensive. This means the demand notice under Section 13(2) is a separate and independent procedural step required to enforce the guarantee, and its issuance constitutes the formal invocation of the guarantee deed. The documents further clarify that the guarantor''''s liability arises upon receipt of such a notice, not merely by virtue of the existence of the guarantee agreement.Checking relevance for S. N. Prasad VS Monnet Finance Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Export Import Bank of India VS CHL Limited...
Export Import Bank of India VS CHL Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(NCLAT) 562 : Yes, there is a distinction between the invocation of a guarantee deed and the issuance of a demand notice to the personal guarantor. The invocation of the guarantee is triggered by a default by the principal borrower, which must be communicated to the guarantor through a written notice. Clause 4 of the ''''Deed of Guarantee'''' specifies that the guarantor shall pay the amount due upon ''''first demand'''' after receiving a written notice from the creditor (Exim Bank) of the default, and that the notice must specify the default and the amount payable. The demand notice is not merely a formality—it is a necessary precondition for invoking the guarantee. The documents confirm that the demand must be issued by the creditor to the guarantor, and the guarantor is liable only after such notice is delivered. Additionally, the General Conditions state that the dispatch of such notice by Exim Bank is sufficient notice to or demand on the guarantor, and that the guarantee is enforceable without any prior demand from the borrower. This confirms that the demand notice issued by the creditor to the guarantor is a distinct and essential step in the invocation process, separate from the underlying default by the principal borrower.Checking relevance for West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. VS Niccon Electronics Devices Private Ltd. ...
West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. VS Niccon Electronics Devices Private Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(Cal) 254 : Yes, there is a clear distinction between the invocation of a guarantee deed and the actual demand notice issued to the personal guarantor by the creditor. The invocation of the guarantee refers to the act by which the creditor formally calls upon the guarantor to fulfill the obligation, which triggers the limitation period for enforcing the guarantor''''s liability. In contrast, a demand notice issued on the principal debtor under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, cannot be treated as a notice upon the guarantors. The limitation for enforcing the liability of the guarantors starts running from the date of invocation of the guarantee, not from the date of the notice issued on the principal debtor. Therefore, the two are not the same: the invocation of the guarantee is a separate and distinct event from the issuance of a demand notice to the guarantor, and only the former initiates the limitation period.
