https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313922 Section 22(1) of SICA was construed as giving guarantors only the limited statutory protection expressly stated, so execution proceedings against a guarantor were maintainable and not barred merely because the principal debtor's liability was under proceedings or covered by a sanctioned scheme. Section 128 of the Contract Act was applied to hold that a surety's liability remains co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the decree-holder may proceed directly against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. The exemption for one main residential house under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC was found unavailable on the facts, as the Prithvi Raj Road property was not established to be the appellant's occupied dwelling house, so it was liable to attachment. en-us Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313922 Section 22(1) of SICA was construed as giving guarantors only the limited statutory protection expressly stated, so execution proceedings against a guarantor were maintainable and not barred merely because the principal debtor's liability was under proceedings or covered by a sanctioned scheme. Section 128 of the Contract Act was applied to hold that a surety's liability remains co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the decree-holder may proceed directly against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. The exemption for one main residential house under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC was found unavailable on the facts, as the Prithvi Raj Road property was not established to be the appellant's occupied dwelling house, so it was liable to attachment. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313922