https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313347 The HC dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court's decree holding defendant-4 liable as a surety. The court found that the surety's liability was not discharged by the loss of hypothecated properties and upheld the continuing guarantee. The surety bond allowed defendants 1 to 3 to bind defendant-4 through acknowledgments, rendering her liable despite her objections. The court emphasized the binding nature of defendant-4's contractual obligations and rejected her claims of discharge, confirming the legality of the lower court's decision. en-us Wed, 04 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 18:15:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313347 The HC dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court's decree holding defendant-4 liable as a surety. The court found that the surety's liability was not discharged by the loss of hypothecated properties and upheld the continuing guarantee. The surety bond allowed defendants 1 to 3 to bind defendant-4 through acknowledgments, rendering her liable despite her objections. The court emphasized the binding nature of defendant-4's contractual obligations and rejected her claims of discharge, confirming the legality of the lower court's decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313347