https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313411 Past consideration can support a contract of guarantee where the guarantee is linked to the principal debtor's prior liability or forbearance, and illustration (c) to Section 127 of the Contract Act cannot narrow that statutory scope. On that basis, the guarantors could not be exonerated merely because the consideration arose from an earlier transaction. The arbitral award was also held liable to interference under Section 34 because its refusal to enforce the claim against the guarantors, while accepting liability of the principal debtor, rested on an erroneous view of law and amounted to patent illegality. The award was set aside to the extent it denied recovery against the guarantors, enabling enforcement against them for the same liability. en-us Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:28:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313411 Past consideration can support a contract of guarantee where the guarantee is linked to the principal debtor's prior liability or forbearance, and illustration (c) to Section 127 of the Contract Act cannot narrow that statutory scope. On that basis, the guarantors could not be exonerated merely because the consideration arose from an earlier transaction. The arbitral award was also held liable to interference under Section 34 because its refusal to enforce the claim against the guarantors, while accepting liability of the principal debtor, rested on an erroneous view of law and amounted to patent illegality. The award was set aside to the extent it denied recovery against the guarantors, enabling enforcement against them for the same liability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313411