https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287888 The High Court dismissed the Appeal, ruling that the suit claim was not barred by the law of limitation. The Appellant's argument that the renewal of facilities occurred in 1978, not 1977, was rejected based on the clear terms of the executed documents and the continuous nature of the guarantee. The Court emphasized the importance of the continuing guarantee terms in determining liability, stating that as long as the account is active and the guarantor does not refuse obligations, the limitation period does not start. The Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2020 16:15:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287888 The High Court dismissed the Appeal, ruling that the suit claim was not barred by the law of limitation. The Appellant's argument that the renewal of facilities occurred in 1978, not 1977, was rejected based on the clear terms of the executed documents and the continuous nature of the guarantee. The Court emphasized the importance of the continuing guarantee terms in determining liability, stating that as long as the account is active and the guarantor does not refuse obligations, the limitation period does not start. The Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287888