https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459159 A guarantor remained liable because the guarantee imposed joint and several liability, expressly excluded discharge through the creditor's acts or omissions, and the creditor was not obliged to repossess leased equipment after default. Failure to remove equipment embedded in the borrower's factory constituted forbearance under the Contract Act, not loss or parting with identifiable security that could discharge a surety. The objection that the suit required permission under the Companies Act failed because prior permission under the sick companies regime was sufficient and no continuing bar was established. Liability remained subject to the guarantee's contractual ceiling, with costs awarded to the creditor. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:05:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459159 A guarantor remained liable because the guarantee imposed joint and several liability, expressly excluded discharge through the creditor's acts or omissions, and the creditor was not obliged to repossess leased equipment after default. Failure to remove equipment embedded in the borrower's factory constituted forbearance under the Contract Act, not loss or parting with identifiable security that could discharge a surety. The objection that the suit required permission under the Companies Act failed because prior permission under the sick companies regime was sufficient and no continuing bar was established. Liability remained subject to the guarantee's contractual ceiling, with costs awarded to the creditor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459159