9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim by the plaintiff bank against the company in liquidation and guarantors. 2. Objection raised by guarantors regarding liability after claim admitted by Liquidator. 3. Interpretation of Sections 128, 133, and 137 of the Contract Act. 4. Analysis of precedents on the liability of sureties and guarantors. 5. Determination of plaintiff bank's right to proceed against guarantors. Analysis: The Punjab National Bank filed a suit against Mehra Brothers (Private) Ltd. and guarantors for the recovery of a loan amount. The claim against the company was as a principal debtor, and against the guarantors was for guaranteeing the repayment of the loan. The company was in liquidation, and the Official Liquidator was appointed to represent it. The Official Liquidator admitted a portion of the claim and made a payment towards the first dividend. The plaintiff bank intended to proceed against the guarantors for the remaining sum claimed. An objection was raised by the guarantors, arguing that the claim acceptance by the Liquidator discharged their liability. Reference was made to Sections 128, 133, and 137 of the Contract Act to support this argument. The guarantors contended that the acceptance of the claim by the Liquidator varied the contract and discharged their liability. However, the plaintiff bank argued that the liability of the guarantors remains unaffected even if the principal debtor is not sued. Precedents were cited to establish that the surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and immediate, not deferred. The plaintiff bank's right to proceed against the guarantors was upheld, emphasizing that the claim admission by the Liquidator did not absolve the guarantors' liability. The court concluded that the plaintiff bank was entitled to pursue the guarantors in the suit, rejecting the objection raised by the guarantors.
|
