https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290599 The court found no evidence to support the existence of a contract of suretyship between the defendants and the plaintiffs. It emphasized the necessity of strict proof for such contracts and ruled that the alleged agreement lacked consideration, rendering it void under Section 127 of the Contract Act. The court also determined that the partnership firm continued to operate under a different name, highlighting the defendants' dishonest conduct. Despite allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment against the defendants, the court awarded them only half of the costs due to their lack of honesty throughout the proceedings. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 16:46:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290599 The court found no evidence to support the existence of a contract of suretyship between the defendants and the plaintiffs. It emphasized the necessity of strict proof for such contracts and ruled that the alleged agreement lacked consideration, rendering it void under Section 127 of the Contract Act. The court also determined that the partnership firm continued to operate under a different name, highlighting the defendants' dishonest conduct. Despite allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment against the defendants, the court awarded them only half of the costs due to their lack of honesty throughout the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Feb 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290599