TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Surety liability discharged when principal debt statute-barred under Indian Contract Act</h1> <h3>Ranjit Singh and Ors. Versus Naubat and Ors.</h3> The High Court interpreted Sections 134 and 137 of the Indian Contract Act regarding the liability of sureties on a surety bond. The court held that the ... - Issues:1. Recovery of money from sureties on a surety bond.2. Effect of principal debtor's debt becoming statute-barred on the liability of the sureties.3. Interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the Indian Contract Act in relation to the discharge of sureties.Analysis:1. The plaintiffs filed a suit to recover money from the defendants based on a surety bond executed for a judgment-debtor. A compromise was made where the defendants agreed to guarantee the debt if the judgment-debtor failed to pay. After several instalments were paid, the plaintiffs sought execution against the judgment-debtor, but it was held to be time-barred. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sued the sureties for the remaining debt.2. The defense argued that since the plaintiffs did not appeal the time-barred execution against the judgment-debtor, the sureties were discharged. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit, stating that if the remedy against the principal debtor is barred, no remedy against the sureties remains. The court also considered the applicability of Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure but did not delve into it due to the primary issue at hand.3. The appeal to the High Court focused on the interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the Indian Contract Act. The court examined the legal consequences of the creditor's forbearance in suing the principal debtor and its impact on the discharge of the surety. Referring to previous cases, the court emphasized that mere forbearance does not discharge the surety unless it is forbearance for a limited time, not resulting in the discharge of the principal debtor. The court highlighted that the surety is discharged if the creditor's omission to sue the principal debtor results in the discharge of the principal debtor. Relying on precedents, the court held that the surety's liability ceases when the principal debtor's liability is discharged due to the creditor's omission to act within the limitation period, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the lower court's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
