https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464205 In a guarantee dispute, territorial jurisdiction lay where the guarantee was completed and performed, so the objection under Clause XII failed. Non-presentment of the promissory note did not defeat liability because the claim was founded on the guarantee, not on the note as a negotiable instrument, and the statutory defence was inapplicable. The connected documents, read as a whole, created only a personal covenant that assets would remain unencumbered; they did not create a charge, hypothecation, or floating charge, so the surety was not discharged on that basis. Interest also remained recoverable against the surety despite the winding-up order, as the surety's liability was coextensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provided otherwise. en-us Mon, 05 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464205 In a guarantee dispute, territorial jurisdiction lay where the guarantee was completed and performed, so the objection under Clause XII failed. Non-presentment of the promissory note did not defeat liability because the claim was founded on the guarantee, not on the note as a negotiable instrument, and the statutory defence was inapplicable. The connected documents, read as a whole, created only a personal covenant that assets would remain unencumbered; they did not create a charge, hypothecation, or floating charge, so the surety was not discharged on that basis. Interest also remained recoverable against the surety despite the winding-up order, as the surety's liability was coextensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provided otherwise. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464205