https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290996 The appellant successfully argued that there was no valid variation in the contract terms between the principal debtor and creditor, absolving him of liability under the contract of guarantee. The court also ruled that giving time to the principal debtor to make up a deficit in pledged goods did not constitute a promise to give time for payment of money. Additionally, the appellant was discharged from liability to the extent of the value of lost security due to the creditor's negligence. As a result, the appellant's liability was reduced to Rs. 5,243.58, and the High Court's decree was modified accordingly. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:21:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290996 The appellant successfully argued that there was no valid variation in the contract terms between the principal debtor and creditor, absolving him of liability under the contract of guarantee. The court also ruled that giving time to the principal debtor to make up a deficit in pledged goods did not constitute a promise to give time for payment of money. Additionally, the appellant was discharged from liability to the extent of the value of lost security due to the creditor's negligence. As a result, the appellant's liability was reduced to Rs. 5,243.58, and the High Court's decree was modified accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290996