https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109534 Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was held to be confined to the industrial concern and its secured property, so it cannot be used to take possession of, sell, or lease a surety's mortgaged property; enforcement against a surety must instead follow the separate statutory route under section 31 or civil proceedings. The Court also reaffirmed that a creditor need not first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety, because the surety's liability is co-extensive under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The impugned action under section 29 against sureties' properties was therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:38:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109534 Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was held to be confined to the industrial concern and its secured property, so it cannot be used to take possession of, sell, or lease a surety's mortgaged property; enforcement against a surety must instead follow the separate statutory route under section 31 or civil proceedings. The Court also reaffirmed that a creditor need not first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety, because the surety's liability is co-extensive under section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The impugned action under section 29 against sureties' properties was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109534