https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459711 A sanctioned compromise scheme did not, on these facts, discharge the guarantor because the guarantor was a confirming party to the tripartite arrangement and had consented to the variation in the original lending terms. The law of guarantee therefore left the surety's liability co-extensive with the principal debtor's, and the discharge provisions in Sections 133, 134 and 135 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were not attracted. The Companies Act scheme did not by itself extinguish the creditor's rights against the surety, unless the guarantee contract so provided. The request to delete the condition preserving the creditor's right against the guarantor was rejected. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2024 20:36:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459711 A sanctioned compromise scheme did not, on these facts, discharge the guarantor because the guarantor was a confirming party to the tripartite arrangement and had consented to the variation in the original lending terms. The law of guarantee therefore left the surety's liability co-extensive with the principal debtor's, and the discharge provisions in Sections 133, 134 and 135 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were not attracted. The Companies Act scheme did not by itself extinguish the creditor's rights against the surety, unless the guarantee contract so provided. The request to delete the condition preserving the creditor's right against the guarantor was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459711