https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302897 The HC upheld liability under a guarantee after comparing the disputed signature with an admitted contemporaneous signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and finding no material dissimilarity. The admitted signature in a document containing the defendant's property details was treated as reliable evidence that he had executed the surety arrangement for the loan. The court also held that, under Section 128 of the Contract Act, a surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provides otherwise, so the creditor was not required to first proceed against the principal debtor or his properties. The decree was modified by deleting the condition imposing prior recourse against the principal debtor. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:44:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302897 The HC upheld liability under a guarantee after comparing the disputed signature with an admitted contemporaneous signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and finding no material dissimilarity. The admitted signature in a document containing the defendant's property details was treated as reliable evidence that he had executed the surety arrangement for the loan. The court also held that, under Section 128 of the Contract Act, a surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provides otherwise, so the creditor was not required to first proceed against the principal debtor or his properties. The decree was modified by deleting the condition imposing prior recourse against the principal debtor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302897