https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109702 A creditor may proceed against a guarantor under a personal guarantee even after invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and taking possession of the industrial unit, because surety liability remains co-extensive and the doctrine of election does not bar use of another lawful remedy. The Corporation's recovery action against the guarantor was not found unfair on these facts, and continued interest liability under the loan arrangement was upheld. However, where recovery is sought under section 4(2)(b) of the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act against a person's own mortgaged immovable property, that mortgage question must be determined first; recovery was stayed pending factual determination by the Tehsildar. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109702 A creditor may proceed against a guarantor under a personal guarantee even after invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and taking possession of the industrial unit, because surety liability remains co-extensive and the doctrine of election does not bar use of another lawful remedy. The Corporation's recovery action against the guarantor was not found unfair on these facts, and continued interest liability under the loan arrangement was upheld. However, where recovery is sought under section 4(2)(b) of the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act against a person's own mortgaged immovable property, that mortgage question must be determined first; recovery was stayed pending factual determination by the Tehsildar. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109702