https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459159 A creditor's mere omission to repossess leased equipment does not discharge a surety under Section 141 of the Indian Contract Act where the guarantee makes liability joint and several, excludes discharge for the creditor's acts or omissions, and the creditor has not actually lost or parted with security; such conduct is treated as forbearance under Section 137. The article also states that, in the winding-up context, prior permission under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies regime was sufficient, Section 446 of the Companies Act did not bar continuation of the suit, and the guarantor remained liable within the contractual ceiling. 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 creditor's mere omission to repossess leased equipment does not discharge a surety under Section 141 of the Indian Contract Act where the guarantee makes liability joint and several, excludes discharge for the creditor's acts or omissions, and the creditor has not actually lost or parted with security; such conduct is treated as forbearance under Section 137. The article also states that, in the winding-up context, prior permission under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies regime was sufficient, Section 446 of the Companies Act did not bar continuation of the suit, and the guarantor remained liable within the contractual ceiling. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459159