<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (3) TMI 369 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456209</link>
    <description>A surety is discharged where the creditor and principal debtor, without the surety&#039;s assent, materially vary or substitute the original loan arrangement, because statutory protections under suretyship cannot be overridden by the guarantee bond. An acknowledgment or renewed promissory note executed only by the principal debtor does not extend limitation against the sureties, since limitation must be saved by the party against whom liability is asserted. A mere demand clause also does not defer the statutory start of limitation where the loan documents themselves fix the relevant starting point. The suit was therefore time-barred on proper computation of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2024 12:04:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 369 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456209</link>
      <description>A surety is discharged where the creditor and principal debtor, without the surety&#039;s assent, materially vary or substitute the original loan arrangement, because statutory protections under suretyship cannot be overridden by the guarantee bond. An acknowledgment or renewed promissory note executed only by the principal debtor does not extend limitation against the sureties, since limitation must be saved by the party against whom liability is asserted. A mere demand clause also does not defer the statutory start of limitation where the loan documents themselves fix the relevant starting point. The suit was therefore time-barred on proper computation of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>