https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168736 The SC construed the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 as confining Section 29 to action against the defaulting industrial concern, so the Corporation could not take possession of mortgaged property belonging to a surety or guarantor. It held that a surety's liability, though coextensive under the Contract Act, is not the same as the industrial concern's liability and cannot expand Section 29 by implication. The Court further held that Section 31 creates a distinct and additional remedy that specifically permits enforcement against a surety, operating without prejudice to Section 29 and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The statutory route against surety property therefore lies under Section 31, not Section 29. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168736 The SC construed the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 as confining Section 29 to action against the defaulting industrial concern, so the Corporation could not take possession of mortgaged property belonging to a surety or guarantor. It held that a surety's liability, though coextensive under the Contract Act, is not the same as the industrial concern's liability and cannot expand Section 29 by implication. The Court further held that Section 31 creates a distinct and additional remedy that specifically permits enforcement against a surety, operating without prejudice to Section 29 and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The statutory route against surety property therefore lies under Section 31, not Section 29. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168736