Guarantor recovery protection extended to movable assets, with proceedings to stay in abeyance unless other assets are insufficient.

Guarantors facing revenue recovery were considered entitled to the same protection previously granted to another guarantor: proceedings against movable assets were to remain in abeyance and could continue only if other assets proved insufficient to satisfy the dues. The Kerala High Court applied that earlier protective direction to the petitioners, finding the benefit equally available to them in the recovery action initiated at the instance of the first respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being guarantors against whom revenue recovery steps were initiated, were entitled to the benefit of the earlier directions protecting the movable assets of a guarantor.

Analysis: The challenge was to recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the first respondent against the petitioners as guarantors of a loan. The Court noted that in a similar case involving another guarantor, proceedings against movable assets had been directed to be kept in abeyance and to be proceeded with only if the other assets were insufficient to recover the dues. The same benefit was sought and found applicable to the petitioners.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to the benefit of the earlier directions, and the recovery proceedings were disposed of accordingly.

---