<?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>2009 (10) TMI 973 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290159</link>
    <description>A continuing guarantee remains enforceable until validly revoked, and the surety&#039;s legal representatives continue to be bound where the guarantee covers a series of transactions and no written revocation is shown. Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires mutual assent to substitute the original contract; mere transfer of accounts or receiver-managed dealings does not amount to novation or discharge. Where a loan is advanced for the functioning of a trust and its business, the trust may be liable in restitution under Section 70 as the beneficiary of a non-gratuitous transaction. Acceptance of that benefit can also create estoppel against denying repayment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 973 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290159</link>
      <description>A continuing guarantee remains enforceable until validly revoked, and the surety&#039;s legal representatives continue to be bound where the guarantee covers a series of transactions and no written revocation is shown. Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires mutual assent to substitute the original contract; mere transfer of accounts or receiver-managed dealings does not amount to novation or discharge. Where a loan is advanced for the functioning of a trust and its business, the trust may be liable in restitution under Section 70 as the beneficiary of a non-gratuitous transaction. Acceptance of that benefit can also create estoppel against denying repayment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>