SURETY’S LIABILITY
As per section 128 [ii] the extent of surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the principal
debtor i.e. equal to the liability of the principal debtor until and unless the surety made some
provisions against it in the contract of guarantee.
What is Co-extensive liability?
This entails that the surety is directly liable for all that the principal debtor owes to the
creditor and not one penny less or more than that amount. It is the maximum limit to which
the surety can be made liable in regards to his guarantee. In the case of Maharaja of
Benaras v Har Narain Singh[iii] under the agreement in this case and even otherwise, the
surety is liable not only for the principal amount but also for the interest on the principal
amount and charges incurred in enforcing this liability. The court held that the trial court
erred in decreeing the suit against the surety for the only principal amount excluding interest
and costs. Therefore, we can conclude the entirety of the liability of the principal debtor also
becomes the liability of the surety once the debtor defaults in the payment.
It must also be noted that the liability wholly depends upon the terms of the contract and
hence must be followed completely.
Terms of Contract
1. Condition precedent
The surety before entering into the contract of guarantee may put forward some condition
precedent to his liability wherein he would not be held liable until and unless such a
condition is fulfilled, the surety cannot be held liable. Partial recognition of this concept is
also found in section 144[iv] of the act according to which if any person gives their
guarantee upon a contract that the creditor must not be allowed to act upon such a contract
until another person has joined in it as co-surety, the guarantee won’t be valid. An example
of this point is the National Provincial Bank of England v Brackenbury[v]. Under this case,
the defendant signed a guarantee which on the face of it was intended to be a joint and
several guarantees of three other persons with him. One of them did not sign. There being
no agreement between the bank and the co-guarantors to dispense with his signature, the
defendant was held not liable.
2. Proceeding against surety without exhausting
remedies against the debtor
Where the liability is otherwise unconditional i.e. co-extensive the creditor cannot be
compelled to exhaust his remedies against the debtor first to be able to or to be allowed to
sue the surety i.e. the creditor can sue the surety for the default made by the principal
debtor without furthering any proceedings against the debtor first. This was held in the case
of Bank of Bihar Ltd v Damodar Prasad[vi] under this case the supreme court ruled in favour
of the creditor and held that it makes no sense or value to the contract of guarantee if the
creditor first has to exhaust all his remedies against the principal debtor to be able to make
surety liable for the default.
Similarly, it must be noted that the creditor can take against the debtor alone as well and his
suit cannot be rejected on the grounds that he did not include the guarantor as the
defendant to the suit or vice versa i.e. the surety can be sued alone irrespective to the fact
that the principal debtor has been added as a defendant to the suit.
3. Death of principal debtor
The surety is not discharged of his liability towards the creditor under a contract of
guarantee under a situation wherein the principal debtor is dead.
Surety’s right to limit his liability or make it
conditional
It is open to the surety to place a limit upon his liability. He may either expressly declare his
guarantee to be limited to a fixed amount. The surety can do this by capping the limit to the
amount to which he can be held liable or by insisting upon collateral security to be
submitted by the principal debtor to the creditor against the debt to reduce the burden of
liability.
It must also be noted that the surety will not be discharged of his liability wherein there
exists a doctrine of impossibility of performance, as had been held in the case of Florence
Mabel R.J. v State of Kerela[vii].
Continuing Guarantee
It must be understood that a guarantee may extend over a series of transactions under
which the surety binds himself to the default in each and every transaction separately and is
liable to the creditor. The concept has been defined in section 129[viii] of the Indian Contract
Act. However, it may be revoked with the help of a notice, unlike the guarantee which is
entered only in terms of a single transaction. The latter guarantee once entered into by the
surety cannot be revoked at any moment into the contract.
On the other hand, the continuing guarantee may be revoked however, it will discharge the
surety’s liability only in regards to any future transactions and not the past defaults if any. It
must be noted that the surety is liable for the default of the principal but the situations of and
provisions of each contract of guarantee can be different and hence the contract or
agreement must explicitly govern the manner in which the surety’s liability must be
calculated and then dealt with.
Under certain conditions or situations, the surety may also be allowed to discharge his
liability wherein either the debtor is at fault or the creditor by his own fault or conduct does
something which has the effect of discharging surety from his liability in regards of the
contract of guarantee.
ENDNOTES
[i] Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act
[ii] Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act
[iii] ILR (1906-07) 28
[iv] Section 144 of the Indian Contract Act
[v] (1906) 22 TLR 797
[vi] AIR 1969 SC 297
[vii] AIR 2001 Ker 19
[viii] Section 129 of the Indian Contract Act
According to section 126[1], a contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or
discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. Three parties involved in a contract of
guarantee are, surety, who gives the guarantee; principal debtor, the person in respect of whose
default the guarantee is given and creditor, to whom the guarantee is given.
The liability of surety with regard to the principal debtor is co-extensive[2]. This means that the
surety is liable for the exact amount for which the principal debtor is bound and nothing more than
that unless otherwise provided in the contract of guarantee.
It depends upon the creditor to choose against whom he wants to proceed first. If he so wishes to
move against the surety first then the fact that he did not initiate a proceeding against the principal
debtor holds no consequence. The same is true for hypothecated goods and mortgaged goods. The
surety can limit his liability by placing such terms in the contract itself.
The liability of surety can be discharged by:
1. Revocation (S 130)
2. Death of surety (S 131)
3. Novation in the terms of the contract (S 133)
4. Release or discharge of principal debtor (S 134)
5. When creditor compounds with, gives time to, or agrees not to sue, principal debtor. (S
135)
6. Impairing guarantor’s remedy (S 139)
II. Extent of Surety’s Liability
A. Co-Extensive Liability concerning Principal Debtor
The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and the guarantor will be
liable to the extent as the principal debtor will be. It is provided in section 128 of the Indian Contract
Act i.e. Surety’s Liability.
Section 128[3] of the Indian Contract Act states that “Liability of surety is co-extensive with that of the
principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract”. This means that unless there is a
contrary agreement in the contract, the creditor has the freedom to sue either the principal debtor or
surety or both.
In Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad[4], the Hon’ble Court held that an action against the surety
cannot be prevented solely on the ground that the creditor has an alternative relief against the
principal borrower. It was held that asking the creditor to exhaust his remedies against the principal
debtor first and only then move against the surety would defeat the purpose of the guarantee.
In State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered[5], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that surety
cannot insist that the creditor should first exhaust his remedies against the principal debtor. The
same was reaffirmed in Ram Bahadur Singh v. Tehsildar Bisli[6]. In the case of, N. Narasimhaiah
v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn[7] it was held that a suit against the surety is maintainable even
if the creditor has not sued the principal debtor.
The term ‘co-extensive’ under section 128[8], implies that the liability of the surety is at par with the
principal debtor. Liability of surety is the same as principal debtor and not more than that. In
Maharaja of Benaras v. Har Narain Singh[9], it was held that if the principal debtor is liable to pay
interest, the surety can also be held liable to pay the interest. So, it is a settled principle in the law of
contracts that if the principal is liable for the principal amount plus the interest and other charges,
then the creditor has the option to move against either the surety or the principal debtor to recover
that amount.
In Karnataka State Industries Investment and Devp Corpn Ltd v. SBI[10], the court held that
dismissal of the suit against the principal debtor does not itself absolve the surety from his liabilities.
In the case of SBI v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd[11] it was held that if the management of the principal
debtor’s company has been taken over, that does not discharge the guarantor from his liability.
In case of death of the principal debtor, a suit against him becomes void-ab-initio but the surety, in
this case, is not absolved from his liability. However, if the liability of the principal debtor is scaled
down, then the liability of surety also reduces accordingly[12] or if the liability of the principal debtor is
declared unenforceable on the ground that the contract is illegal, then the liability of surety also ends
there[13] or if the contract entered between the principal debtor and the surety is declared to be void
on the ground that the principal debtor was a minor at the time of entering into the contract, the
liability of surety also ends.[14]
In Central Bank of India v. C L Vimla[15], it was held that if the guarantor agreed to be bound by
any judgment or decree obtained by the creditor against the principal debtor in the guarantee clause,
then any settlement or compromise between the principal debtor and the creditor is binding upon the
guarantor and the fact that he did not know of such settlement or compromise has no consequence.
In the case of Nandlal Chogalal v. Surajmal Gangaram[16], in a suit against the principal debtor
and surety, the debtor was ordered to pay in instalments and the suit against surety was dismissed.
This decision was held to be improper and the principle of co-extensive liability was reaffirmed in the
case of Jagdish Sarda vs. SBI[17]. Therefore, it is a settled principle in the law of contract that, the
liability of the surety is joint and several with the principal debtor.
B. Liability concerning Pledged Goods
In the case of UP Financial Corpn v. Garlonn Polyfeb Industries[18] it was held that there was no
specific condition that the financial corporation should proceed against the hypothecated property
first; it can proceed against the surety without proceeding against the hypothecated goods. The
same was reiterated in the case of State Bank of India v. Gautmi Devi Gupta[19] that creditor can
move against the surety even without proceeding against the hypothecated property.
Earlier in the case of Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayan[20], Supreme Court held that in case
the creditor obtains a decree against the principal debtor, surety and the mortgaged property, then
he should first move against the mortgaged property and then proceed against the surety.
This decision of the Supreme Court was overruled in the case of SBI v. Indexport Registered[21]
where the court held that “The decree is simultaneous and it is jointly and severally (passed) against
all the defendants including the guarantor. It is the right of the decree-holder to proceed with it in a
way he likes.” It also said that in case the hypothecated goods were sold and the decreed amount
was adjusted then the guarantor cannot ask the decree-holder that he should have first moved
against him instead of proceeding against the mortgaged goods.
A financial corporation cannot move against the mortgaged property without the knowledge of the
guarantor or auction the property without his knowledge.[22]
C. Surety’s Right to Limit his Liability
Section 128 clearly states that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with the principal debtor
unless otherwise provided in the contract. So, if the surety declares that his liability is limited to a
certain amount, then the creditor cannot sue him to remove the extra amount. The Patna High Court,
in the case of Aditya Narayan Chauresia v. Bank of India[23], held that if the guarantor binds himself
to a certain maximum limit then his liability would not exceed beyond that amount.
D. Liability of Surety when he puts a Condition for Co-
Surety
The liability of surety can also become limited if he puts a condition that the creditor would not act
upon his guarantee unless a co-surety joins in. In this case, the guarantee given would be valid only
when a co-surety joins in[24].
E. Continuing Guarantee
In case of a continuing guarantee, the agreement continues for an indefinite period as it is for a
continuous purpose like for instance one person agrees to do a particular thing ones in a year. So,
there will be a new course after every year passes. It is provided in section 129 of the Indian
Contract Act i.e. continuing Guarantee.
Section 129 of the Indian Contract Act states that “A guarantee which extends to a series of
transactions, is called a ‘continuing guarantee’.”
As per section 129[25], a continuing guarantee is a guarantee which extends to a series of
transactions. Unlike specific guarantee, where a surety undertakes to be answerable towards a
particular transaction, in a continuing guarantee the surety may undertake to be responsible for a
series of transaction. The surety has the power to revoke a continuing guarantee for any future
transaction after giving notice for the same to the creditor.[26]
III. Discharge of surety from liability
The contract of guarantee is of utmost good faith and the guarantor is the person who safeguards
the rights of the debtor and makes the debt secured. So, it was the duty of the lawmaker to make
certain provisions to safeguard the rights of the guarantor if anything wrong has been acted.
Following are the conditions in which the surety will be discharged of its liabilities.
1. By Revocation
In normal circumstances, the contract of guarantee cannot be revoked; it can only be revoked in the
case of continuing guarantee. It is provided under section 130 of the Indian Contract Act i.e.,
“Revocation of continuing guarantee”.
Section 130[27] of Indian Contract Act states that “A continuing guarantee may at any time be
revoked by the surety, as to future transactions, by notice to the creditor.”
In the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Goh Teng Hoon[28], it was held, “Revocation becomes
effective for the future transactions while the surety remains liable for transactions already entered
into.”
In the case of Bhikabhai v. Bai Bhuri[29], the court clarified regarding the “Notice to the Creditor”
that only those notice will be deemed valid which is clear in its meaning with the intention to
terminate the liability under the guarantee. “A denial of liability in a previous suit was held to be not
serving as a notice.”[30]
2. By Death of Surety
It is only applicable in the case of continuing guarantee. If the guarantor dies and there is no contract
of continuation after his death, the contract of guarantee will come to an end. It is provided in section
131 of the Indian Contract Act i.e. “Revocation of continuing guarantee with surety’s death”.
Section 131[31] of the Indian Contract Act states that “The death of the surety operates, in the
absence of any contract to the contrary, as a revocation of a continuing guarantee, so far as regards
future transactions.”
The termination of liability will be in respect of future transactions and the heirs can be sued for
those liabilities which has already incurred. In the case of R.K. Dewan v. the State of U.P.[32], the
court observed, “The liability of the deceased surety can be imposed against his legal heirs but only
to the extent of the property inherited by them.”
3. By Variance
The liability of surety can be discharged on the ground of variance in the main contract if it is without
the permission of the surety. It is surety’s right that his permission should be taken for any variance
in the main contract. It is provided in section 133 of the Indian Contract Act i.e. “Discharge of surety
by variance in terms of a contract”. There is no effect of advance authorization of alteration on the
provisions of section 133 of the Indian Contract Act.
According to section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872[33], “Any variance, made without the
surety’s consent, in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor,
discharges the surety as a transaction subsequent to variance.” A contract of guarantee initially may
not be of good faith but once it is formed, the creditor has the duty of utmost good faith.[34]
A guarantee is not a contract in respect of a primary transaction but an independent transaction
containing reciprocal obligations. So, some relief is given to both the creditor and guarantor.[35]
Special care of surety’s interest has been taken up by the court of equity and law.
It was held in the case of Rouse vs. Bradford Banking Co Ltd, “A surety is considered a favoured
debtor & his liability is in srictissimi juris”[36]. In the case of T. Raju Setty v. Bank of Baroda[37], it
was held, “a surety is discharged when, without his consent, the creditor makes any change in the
nature of terms of his contract with the principal debtor.”
In the case of Pratapsing Moholalbhai v. Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad[38], it was held that the
surety is discharged as soon as the original contract is altered without his consent. Also, in the case
of Bonar v. Macdonald[39] and Brahmarya & Co v. K. Srinivasan Thangirayar[40], it was held, “the
surety could not be called on to make good the loss as the fresh agreement was a substitution of a
new agreement for the former which discharged the surety.”
In the case of Khatun Bibi v. Abdullah[41], the surety was discharged since the rent was increased
without the consent of the guarantor. Also, in the case of C.N. Sundaram v. Chennai Finance Co
Ltd[42], the surety was discharged on account of a promissory note from the principal debtor without
reference to the surety. In the case of Jowand Singh v. Tirath Ram[43], the surety was discharged
because the business was extended without his knowledge.
In the case of Holme v. Brunskill[44], the Cotton LJ stated,
“The true rule, in my opinion, is that if there is that any agreement between the principals regarding
the contract guaranteed, the surety ought to be consulted and that if he has not consented to the
alteration, although in cases where it is without inquiry evident that the alteration is unsubstantial, or
that it cannot be otherwise than beneficial to the surety, the surety may not be discharged; yet that if
it is not self-evident that the alteration is unsubstantial or one which cannot be prejudicial to the
surety, the court will not in an action against the surety, go into the inquiry as to the effect of the
alteration.”
The Dictum of this was approved by the judicial committee in Ward v. National Bank of New
Zealand Ltd.[45]
In the case of Bolton v. Salmon[46], it was held that alteration discharges surety from his personal
liabilities as well as also releases the property which the guarantor included in the contract. In the
case of National Bank of Nigeria Ltd vs. M.S. Awolesi[47] and Burnes v. Trade Credits Ltd[48],
the surety was discharged on account of variance in the contract.
4. By discharge of Principal Debtor
If there is any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the debtor is released
will have the effect of releasing the guarantor as well. If the principal debtor who is the responsible
person for which the surety is paying is released, then there is no ground on which the guarantor
must be punished. It is provided under section 134 of the Indian Contract Act i.e. “Discharge of
surety by release or discharge of the principal debtor”. This section discharges the guarantor firstly if
the principal debtor is released by any contract with the creditor or if there is any act by which the
principal debtor is released.
According to section 134 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “The surety is discharged by any contract
between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the principal debtor is released, or by any act
or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal
debtor.”[49] The most desirable interpretation of Section 128 is that it makes the liability of the surety
coextensive with that of the principal debtor. The effect of this section is “that a statutory reduction or
extinguishment of the principal debtor’s liability will operate as a pro tanto reduction or
extinguishment of surety’s debt.”[50]
The Supreme Court held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kaluram[51] and further in State Bank of
Saurashtra v. Chitranjan Rangnath Raja[52] that “by reason of the deliberate act of the principal
debtor or the creditor and without the knowledge, consent and approval of the surety, the question of
further liability would not arise and in the contextual facts discharged the guarantor. Significantly, it
may be stated that the liability of the guarantor cannot but be stated to be a strict liability and even if
the principal debtor is discharged from his liability unless such discharge is through the act of the
creditor without consent of the surety/guarantor, the creditor’s right of action against the surety is
preserved.”
In the case of Ramswaroop & Anr. v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Anr.[53], the Hon’ble court
stated, “when the creditor himself agrees to accept entire decretal amount from the borrower
(defendant) only, then it amounts to voluntarily entering into a new contract by the creditor with the
principal debtor.” This new compromise (agreement), by necessary implication, discharges the
guarantor.
In the case of Kahn Singh v. Tek Chand[54], the Indian Contract Act 1872[55] provides that if the
creditor makes any arrangement with the principal debtor by which the latter is released, the surety
is discharged. The learned judges held, “the decree-holder gave up the idea of seeking any remedy
against the sureties and remained content to realize the decretal amount from the principal debtor
and that too in instalments fixed with him.
By this compromise a composition was entered into between the creditor and the principal debtor,
time was given to the principal debtor to make payment and all this was done without the assent and
consent of the surety-appellant. Therefore, from that moment onwards the liability of the surety
became extinct and the only available remedy to the decree-holder remained against the principal
debtor.”
5. By Composition, Giving Time to or Agreeing Not to
Sue Principal Debtor
By Composition
According to section 135 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, “A contract between the creditor and the
principal debtor, by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises to give time to, or not
to sue the principal debtor, discharges the surety, unless the surety assents to such contracts.”[56]
According to Halsbury’s law of England, “Whatever expressly or impliedly discharges the principal
debtor from liability usually discharges the surety also by implication, as his position is thereby
altered without his consent, notwithstanding that the alteration is accomplished by operation of law.
He is therefore discharged where he can establish that the alteration changes the nature of his
liability, but not otherwise.”[57]
In the case of Bolton v. Salmon[58], it was held that composition inevitably involves a variation of the
original contract of the guarantee and therefore the surety is discharged. Followed in the next case
of Mahomedalli Ibrahimji v. Laxmibai[59], it was held that compromise of the suit by the principal
debtor undertaking to pay the dues by instalment, discharges the surety. Such a compromise was
not one which he contemplated when he entered into the suretyship.
In the case of Sri. N.B. Gurudeva v. M/s. State Bank of Mysore and Ors[60], it was held, “a
settlement was entered into between the principal borrower and bank for one-time settlement without
reference to the guarantor.” The court said that this amounted to novation of the contract between
the creditor and principal debtor to the exclusion of the guarantor. The liability of the guarantor
ceased to exist. No proceeding could be initiated against the guarantor. The Guarantor could
challenge the action initiated against him by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Promise to give time
The surety is a person who secures the creditor and makes sure that there is no loss to the creditor
but if the creditor gives time to the principal debtor, it will be a violation of the right of surety.
In the case of Samuel v. Howarth[61], it was held, “The creditor has no right, it is against the faith of
his contract, to give time to the principal, even though manifestly for the benefit of the surety, without
the consent of the surety.”
In the case of Polak v. Everett[62], Blackburn J observed, “It is very undesirable that there should
be any dispute or controversy about whether it is for his benefit or not; there shall be the broad
principle that if the creditor does intentionally violate any rights the surety had when be entered into
the suretyship, even though the damage be nominal only, be shall forfeit the whole remedy.”
In the case of Amitlal Govardhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore[63], the Supreme Court of
India has held that in cases of the bank, if the bank decides to give time to the principal debtor for
raising of quality of pledged goods, it would not amount to give time for payment if it is seen in the
ambit of section 135.
Exception- The exception to the above-stated provision is given in section 136[64] of the Indian
Contract Act i.e. “Surety is not discharged when agreement made with the third person to give time
to the principal debtor”. According to this when there is an agreement with the third person by which
the principal debtor gets some time will not discharge the guarantor of his liability.
Promise not to sue
If an agreement is formed between the creditor and principal debtor in which the creditor promises
not to sue the principal debtor, then the surety will be discharged. In this type of situation, the surety
can ask the creditor to force the principal debtor for the debt which is a violation of the right and
therefore the surety is discharged.
Forbearance to sue different from the promise not to sue
A promise when made by the creditor not to sue the principal debtor absolve the liability of the
guarantor and also the right of the creditor to sue which is different from a mere forbearance to sue.
Section 137[65] of the Indian Contract Act i.e. “Creditor’s forbearance to sue does not discharge
surety” tells about the impact of forbearance to sue.
6. By impairing Guarantor’s Remedy
If there is an act done by the creditor which is inconsistent with the guarantor’s rights, this also
includes omission of an act by the creditor which is required by the guarantor to be done, then the
surety will be discharged from the liability. It is provided in section 139 of the Indian Contract Act i.e.
“Discharge of surety/guarantor by creditor’s act or omission impairing surety’s eventual remedy”.
Section 139 of Indian Contract Act states that “If the creditor does any act which is inconsistent with
the right of surety or omits to do any act which his duty to the surety requires him to do, and the
eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired, the surety is
discharged.”
In the case of SBI v. Praveen Tanneries[66], the court held that the creditor must preserve any
securities he had against the principal debtor. Failing to do the same, the guarantor will be
discharged to the extent of the securities. “If the creditor’s act or omission deprives the surety of the
benefit of this remedy, the surety is discharged.”[67]
References
Books
● Dr Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (12th Edition, Eastern Book Company,
2017).
● Giffard Halsbury and Hardinge Stanley, Halsbury’s Laws of England (16th vol,
Butterworth, 1935).
● R K Bangia, The Indian Contract Act (5th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 1991).
Cases
● Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad AIR 1969 SC 297.
● State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered AIR 1992 SC 1740.
● Ram Bahadur Singh v. Tehsildar Bisli AIR 2002 All. 344.
● Narasimhaiah v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn AIR 2004 Kant 46.
● Maharaja of Beneras v. Har Narain Singh ILR (1906-1907) 28 All 25.
● Karnataka State Industries Investment and Devp Corpn Ltd v. SBI (2004) 4 Kant LJ 266
(DB).
● SBI v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd (1986) 2 SCC 145 (146).
● Narayan Singh v. Chattarsingh AIR 1973 Raj. 347.
● Varadarajulu v. Thavsi Nadar, AIR 1963 Mad. 413.
● Kelappan Nambiar v. Kunhi Raman AIR 1957 Mad. 164.
● Central Bank of India v. C L Vimla (2015) 7 SCC 337.
● Nandlal Chogalal v. Surajmal Gangaram AIR 1962 Nag 62.
● Jagdish Sarda vs. SBI AIR 2016 Cal 2.
● UP Financial Corpn v. Garlonn Polyfeb Industries AIR 2001 All 286.
● State Bank of India v. Gautmi Devi Gupta AIR 2002 MP 81.
● Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayan AIR 1987 SC 1078.
● SBI v. Indexport Registered (1992) 3 SCC 159.
● Prakashwati Jain v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn, AIR 2012 P&H 13.
● Aditya Narayan Chauresia v. Bank of India AIR 2000 Pat. 222.
● Indian Overseas Bank v. Goh Teng Hoon (1989) 1 CLJ 554.
● Bhikabhai v. Bai Bhuri (1904) ILR 27 Bom 272.
● K. Dewan v. State of U.P 2005 All LJ 2067.
● Industrial Finance Corpn of India v. Cannanore Spg & Wug Mills Ltd [2002] 5 SCC 54.
● Rouse v. Bradford Banking Co Ltd 1894 AC 586 (HL).
● T Raju Shetty v. Bank of Baroda AIR 1992 Kant 108; [1991] 4 Kant LJ 475.
● Pratapsing Moholalbhai v. Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad AIR 1935 PC 21.
● Bonar v. Macdonald (1850) 3 HL Cas 226.
● Brahmarya & Co v. K Srinivasan Thangirayar AIR 1959 Mad 122.
● Khatun Bibi v. Abdullah ILR [1880]3 All 9.
● CN Sundaram v. Chennai Finance Co Ltd AIR 2006 NOC 505 (AP).
● Jowand Singh v. Tirath Ram AIR 1939 Lah 193.
● Holme v. Brunskill [1877] LR 3 QBD 495 (CA).
● Ward v. National Bank of New Zealand Ltd [1883] LR 8 AC 755 (PC).
● Bolton v. Salmon [1891] 2 Ch 48.
● National Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. MS Awolesi [1964] 1 WLR 1311.
● Burnes v. Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 805 (PC).
● State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kaluram [1967] 1 SCR 266 [16].
● Saurashtra v. Chitranjan Rangnath Raja [1980] 4 SCC 516 [9].
● Ramswaroop & Anr v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Anr 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 661
[17].
● Kahn Singh v. Tek Chand AIR 1968 J&K 93 [15].
● Mahomedalli Ibrahimji v. Laxmibai AIR 1930 Bom 122.
● Sri NB Gurudeva v. M/s State Bank of Mysore and Others AIR 2011 Kar 188 [14].
● Samuel v. Howarth 3 Mer 272, 279.
● Polak v. Everett (1876) 2 KB 256.
● Amitlal Govardhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore AIR 1968SC 1432.
● SBI v. Praveen Tanneries 1992 (3) ALT 353.
[1] Contract Act 1872, s 126.
[2] Contract Act 1872, s 128.
[3] Contract Act 1872, s 128.
[4] Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad AIR 1969 SC 297.
[5] State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered AIR 1992 SC 1740.
[6] Ram Bahadur Singh v. Tehsildar Bisli AIR 2002 All. 344.
[7] N. Narasimhaiah v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn AIR 2004 Kant 46.
[8] Contract Act 1872, s 128.
[9] Maharaja of Beneras v. Har Narain Singh ILR (1906-1907) 28 All 25.
[10]Karnataka State Industries Investment and Devp Corpn Ltd v. SBI (2004) 4 Kant LJ 266 (DB).
[11] SBI v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd (1986) 2 SCC 145 (146).
[12] Narayan Singh v. Chattarsingh AIR 1973 Raj. 347.
[13] Varadarajulu v. Thavsi Nadar, AIR 1963 Mad. 413.
[14] Kelappan Nambiar v. Kunhi Raman AIR 1957 Mad. 164.
[15]Central Bank of India v. C L Vimla (2015) 7 SCC 337.
[16] Nandlal Chogalal vs. Surajmal Gangaram AIR 1962 Nag 62.
[17] Jagdish Sarda vs. SBI AIR 2016 Cal 2.
[18] UP Financial Corpn v. Garlonn Polyfeb Industries AIR 2001 All 286.
[19] State Bank of India v. Gautmi Devi Gupta AIR 2002 MP 81.
[20] Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayan AIR 1987 SC 1078.
[21] SBI v. Indexport Registered (1992) 3 SCC 159.
[22] Prakashwati Jain v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn, AIR 2012 P&H 13.
[23] Aditya Narayan Chauresia v. Bank of India AIR 2000 Pat. 222.
[24] Contract Act 1872, s 144.
[25] Contract Act 1872, s 129.
[26] Contract Act 1872, s 130.
[27] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 130.
[28] Indian Overseas Bank v. Goh Teng Hoon (1989) 1 CLJ 554.
[29] Bhikabhai v. Bai Bhuri (1904) ILR 27 Bom 272.
[30] Dr Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (12th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2017) 640.
[31] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 131.
[32] R.K. Dewan v. State of U.P 2005 All LJ 2067.
[33] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 133.
[34] Dr Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (12th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2017) 640.
[35] Industrial Finance Corpn of India v Cannanore Spg & Wug Mills Ltd [2002] 5 SCC 54.
[36] Rouse v Bradford Banking Co Ltd 1894 AC 586 (HL).
[37] T Raju Shetty v Bank of Baroda AIR 1992 Kant 108; [1991] 4 Kant LJ 475.
[38] Pratapsing Moholalbhai v Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad AIR 1935 PC 21.
[39] Bonar v Macdonald (1850) 3 HL Cas 226.
[40] Brahmarya & Co v K Srinivasan Thangirayar AIR 1959 Mad 122.
[41] Khatun Bibi v Abdullah ILR [1880]3 All 9.
[42] CN Sundaram v Chennai Finance Co Ltd AIR 2006 NOC 505 (AP).
[43] Jowand Singh v Tirath Ram AIR 1939 Lah 193.
[44] Holme v Brunskill [1877] LR 3 QBD 495 (CA).
[45] Ward v National Bank of New Zealand Ltd [1883] LR 8 AC 755 (PC).
[46] Bolton v Salmon [1891] 2 Ch 48.
[47] National Bank of Nigeria Ltd v MS Awolesi [1964] 1 WLR 1311.
[48] Burnes v Trade Credits Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 805 (PC).
[49] Dr Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (12th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2017) 646.
[50] Ibid 648.
[51] State of Madhya Pradesh v Kaluram [1967] 1 SCR 266 [16].
[52] Saurashtra v Chitranjan Rangnath Raja [1980] 4 SCC 516 [9].
[53] Ramswaroop & Anr v State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Anr 2002 SCC OnLine Raj 661 [17].
[54] Kahn Singh v Tek Chand AIR 1968 J&K 93 [15].
[55] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 134.
[56] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 135.
[57] Giffard Halsbury and Hardinge Stanley, Halsbury’s Laws of England (16th vol, Butterworth,
1935) 192.
[58] Bolton (n 48).
[59] Mahomedalli Ibrahimji v Laxmibai AIR 1930 Bom 122.
[60] Sri NB Gurudeva v M/s State Bank of Mysore and Others AIR 2011 Kar 188 [14].
[61] Samuel v. Howarth 3 Mer 272, 279.
[62] Polak v. Everett (1876) 2 KB 256.
[63] Amitlal Govardhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore AIR 1968SC 1432.
[64] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 136.
[65] Indian Contract Act 1872, s 137.
[66] SBI v. Praveen Tanneries 1992 (3) ALT 353.
[67] Dr Avtar Singh, Contract and Specific Relief (12th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2017) 653.
