https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96821 A sanctioned reconstruction scheme under section 153 of the Companies Act does not, by itself, discharge a surety for the balance of the company's debt; the surety's obligation remains co-extensive and the creditor's acceptance of part satisfaction from the company does not extinguish it. The court also held that a guarantee executed for the company's benefit did not bind the managing agents' joint family estate, because no legal necessity was proved and the transaction was not established as an ordinary incident of the family business. Liability therefore survived against the surety, while the claim against the joint family estate failed. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:13:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96821 A sanctioned reconstruction scheme under section 153 of the Companies Act does not, by itself, discharge a surety for the balance of the company's debt; the surety's obligation remains co-extensive and the creditor's acceptance of part satisfaction from the company does not extinguish it. The court also held that a guarantee executed for the company's benefit did not bind the managing agents' joint family estate, because no legal necessity was proved and the transaction was not established as an ordinary incident of the family business. Liability therefore survived against the surety, while the claim against the joint family estate failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 23 Nov 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96821