<?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>1963 (4) TMI 110 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468333</link>
    <description>A guarantee is enforceable only where consideration moves to the principal debtor or a contemporaneous benefit or promise is given for that debtor&#039;s advantage; on the stated facts, no fresh cash or new benefit passed when the surety signed, so the guarantee was without consideration and unenforceable. The interest claim also failed because the alleged oral agreement had been disbelieved on evidence and could not be reopened in second appeal; as against the principal debtor, the absence of effective cross-objections in the first appellate court was fatal. Once the surety&#039;s liability failed, no interest claim could survive against him. The decree below was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 11:15:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 110 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468333</link>
      <description>A guarantee is enforceable only where consideration moves to the principal debtor or a contemporaneous benefit or promise is given for that debtor&#039;s advantage; on the stated facts, no fresh cash or new benefit passed when the surety signed, so the guarantee was without consideration and unenforceable. The interest claim also failed because the alleged oral agreement had been disbelieved on evidence and could not be reopened in second appeal; as against the principal debtor, the absence of effective cross-objections in the first appellate court was fatal. Once the surety&#039;s liability failed, no interest claim could survive against him. The decree below was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>