9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prietor of defendant No. 1 executed a demand promissory note on 10-2-1981 in favour defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who endorsed the same in favour of plaintiff. An agreement for cash credit was executed by Proprietor of defendant No. 1. Defendans Nos. 2 and 3 also executed a deed of guarantee on the same day; Proprietor operated the cash credit transaction. However, he did not pay the dues for which suit was filed to recover ₹ 1,76,193.31 paise with pendente lite and future interest. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 filed at joint written statement. They did not specifically dispute assertions of plaintiff. Since the industry was sick they requested for payment by instalments. 4. Defendant No. 2 in his separate written statement has not spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he guarantors from their liability. He relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 297 : (1969 All LJ 475), The Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad, in support of his contention in respect of liability of a guarantor. His contention is that solvency of the debtor is not a ground for the surety or guarantor to avoid payment. 8. Under Section 128 of the Contract Act, save as provided in the contract, liability of surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. His liability is immediately. It is not deferred until the creditor exhausted his remedies against the principal. This has been observed in the aforesaid decision. It was further observed: .........The Court rejected the prayer of the principal debtor for paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Lakshmibai Anant Palande. In the said decision question for consideration was whether compromise of the suit by the principal debtor to pay the dues by instalment has the effect of discharge of surety. Correctness of the decision requires no consideration in view of the decision of Supreme Court and of this Court. Decision reported in AIR 1930 Lah 896(2), Ram Chand Diwan Chand v. Sant Singh, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents was rendered where by an arrangements between principal judgment-debtor and decree holder time for discharge of debt was extended by former. It was held that its effect on discharge of surety depends upon the discretion of the Court. This decision would not also influence me in view of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
