<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1941 (8) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198711</link>
    <description>A surety&#039;s liability under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act remains co-extensive with the principal debtor&#039;s liability unless the guarantee contract provides otherwise. Where the principal debtor&#039;s obligation is reduced or discharged by operation of law, and not by any act or omission of the creditor, that statutory change does not by itself release the surety or reduce the creditor&#039;s remedy against the surety. The principle applied is that a debt extinguished or scaled down by law may still leave the surety liable. The surety therefore remained liable for the contractual amount, subject to the separate finding on interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:06:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1941 (8) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198711</link>
      <description>A surety&#039;s liability under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act remains co-extensive with the principal debtor&#039;s liability unless the guarantee contract provides otherwise. Where the principal debtor&#039;s obligation is reduced or discharged by operation of law, and not by any act or omission of the creditor, that statutory change does not by itself release the surety or reduce the creditor&#039;s remedy against the surety. The principle applied is that a debt extinguished or scaled down by law may still leave the surety liable. The surety therefore remained liable for the contractual amount, subject to the separate finding on interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>