TAMILNADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

LAW OF CONTRACTS –II RESEARCH PROJECT

RESPONSIBILITIES OF A SURETY

BY ARUNODHAYA.R

2nd YEAR B.Com. LLB (Hons) BC0220008

SUBMITTED TO

Mr. JINO.M.KURIAN

(Assistant Professor of Law)

DECLARATION
I, R. Arunodhaya BC00220008 2nd year, hereby declare that the research project,
entitled “Responsibilities of a Surety ‘submitted to Tamil Nadu National Law University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of B.Com LLB (Hons.) is a
record of original and independent research work done by me during 2023-24 under the
supervision and guidance of Assistant Professor of Legal History, Mr. Jino. M. Kurian and it
has not formed the basis for the award of any Degree/Diploma/Associateship/Fellowship or other
similar title to any candidate of any University.

Date: 25/10/2023
Place: Tiruchirapalli

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
 I would really like to acknowledge and thank my Professor, Mr. Jino. M. Kurian, who
made this work on this topic possible. His advice and continuous encouragement made me
complete my research project on time and in shaping every level of this project. I'd like to
thank my family and peers for their encouragement, understanding, and prayers, which
empowered me to finish my project work successfully. Finally, I'd like to thank the Almighty
for providing me with the strength and patience to overcome all the obstacles encountered
while working on this project. I will continue to put my faith in you for my future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

4. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6. RESEARCH GAP

7. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

8. SURETY’S LIABILITY

9. CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SURETY HAS NO LIABILITY

10. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF SURETY

11. CONCLUSION

12. BIBILIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION:
 A contract is a collection of legally binding promises that can be either oral or written. It
is a contract that is enforceable between two or more parties. An agreement which is enforceable
by law is a contract, according to Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Law of
guarantee played a role in contract; guarantee in literal meaning was that giving assurance to one
for saving other. But under Indian contract act Guarantee 1defined in section 126 states A
contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability, of a third
person in case of his default. So here under this act guarantor is named as surety in legal term. In
a contract of guarantee there were three parties involved, a principal debtor, creditor and surety.
2
A principal debtor is one who accepts the debt or loan, creditor is one who grants the debt and
the surety is the one who gives guarantee of debt on behalf of principal debtor to the creditor. So
here there were made an implied contract between creditor and the surety. So this contract of
guarantee is called tripartite agreement because there were three parties involved. For a valid
contract of guarantee, there is no need that the party should be capable to enter into a contract, if
he is a minor also he can have capacity to enter into a contract but the liability burden is on the
guarantor and also there is no necessity that the principal debtor gives consideration to surety
under section 127 of ICA3. To fulfill his liability is enough for the surety, no necessary to get
consideration from the principal debtor for the payment done on his behalf. These contract may
either be oral or written, no misrepresentation or concealment. 4 In this contract there can also
joining of other co sureties for the assurance for only the surety. There were 4 types of guarantee,
Retrospective, A retrospective guarantee is an assurance given after the fact that will pay for an
obligation that has already been contracted. Prospective, A prospective guarantee is an assurance
that a specific obligation will be satisfied in the future that is made before the obligation is
committed. Specific, A specific promise is only valid for a specific deal or agreement. It covers a
particular group of obligations or a single responsibility. And Continuing Guarantee, A
continuing guarantee is not restricted to a single transaction and continues in effect until it is
expressly revoked by the guarantor. It may apply to numerous transactions or commitments
made over a long time. For all these types of guarantee, the surety has the liability but some

1
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3838030
2
IndianContractAct(12thedition):RKBangia(AllahabadLawAgency,Faridabad

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/contract-of-guarantee/
4
IndianContractAct(12thedition):AvtarSingh(EasternLawAgency,Noida)
rights and duties may limit based on the guarantee 5. Through this research project we come to
know what were the rights and liabilities of surety against creditor, principal debtor and co surety
with analyzing the sections of Indian contract act 1872. And at what situation that the surety gets
discharge from the liability and how his liability extends to third party all were discussed clearly
through this research paper.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

1. To assess the extension of surety's liability to third party affects by a contract.

2. To explore and examine at what circumstances the surety has no responsibilities in a
contract.
3. To study about the legal rights and duties of the surety in a contract.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. How does the surety's liability extend to third parties affected by the contract?
2. At what circumstances the surety does not have the liability?
3. What were the legal rights of surety in a contract?

RESEARCH GAP:

In the existing legal literature and practices, the liabilities and responsibilities of sureties in the
context of digital contracts and electronic signatures have not been thoroughly investigated or
explained.

5
https://www.vedantu.com/commerce/contract-of-guarantee
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

The responsibilities and risk assessments of the surety are influenced by the principal
debtor's financial state and creditworthiness.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The paper is given the title responsibility of surety under Indian contract Act shall be done by
using analytical methods. Using the doctrinal technique of research, the source of knowledge
will be examined from books, commentaries, journals, articles, reports.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

1. Suretyship and Guarantees: A Treatise on the Law of Suretyship and Guarantees in

India by A.S.R. Chari. In particular, this book focuses on suretyship and guarantees
under Indian law. It talks about suretyship in contracts from a legal standpoint, including
case law and practical considerations.

2. The Indian Contract Act, 1872: With a Special Chapter on Contracts of Guarantee,
Indemnity, and Bailment by R.K. Bangia. Contracts of guarantee, indemnity, and
bailment, which are closely related to suretyship, are specifically discussed in this
book's dedicated chapter. It gives a detailed explanation of the suretyship-related clauses
of the Indian Contract Act.

3. The Surety by William H. Loyd. The numerous facets of suretyship are covered in this
article, along with sureties' rights and obligations under the Indian Contract Act. It offers
a thorough study of pertinent case law.

4. The Liabilities of Sureties by Daniel Cipollone. This journal gives the information about
duties and liabilities of a surety and under which circumstances they can have the liability
to do the act under Indian Contract Act 1872.
 CHAPTER 1: SURETY LIABILITY EXTENDS TO THIRD PARTY

Liability of Surety (Section 128)

The liability of surety is always being secondary in any contract of guarantee; the primary
liability is for the principal debtor. Only when the principal debtor makes any default in
repayment, the surety’s liability comes into play otherwise not. Under section 128 of ICA,
the liability of surety is coextensive i.e. what are the liabilities the principal debtor has to the
creditor as same the surety also have. The creditor can take right over the surety as he have
on principal debtor. But in the case where the contract between the principal debtor and
creditor becomes void or voidable, automatically the surety’s liability becomes primary one.

About the extent of the liability of the surety Section128 provides, thus the liability of the
surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the
contract. The term "co-extensive with that of the principal debtor" indicates the extent of the
liability of the surety. Consequently, unless there is a contract stating otherwise, the principal
debtor's amount of obligation is equal to that of the surety. It will generally be either more or
less; however, under a unique contract, it may be made less than the principal debtor's, but never
more. Law Cases:

Bank of Bihar Ltd vs. Dr Damodar Prasad (AIR1969SC297):

The plaintiff bank lent money to Damodar Prasad, on the guarantee of Paras Nath Singh.
Despite the bank's demands, neither Dadodar Prasad, the principal debtor, nor Paras Nath
Sinha, the surety, were able to repay the loan.The bank then filed a lawsuit against the surety
and the principal debtor.A deed in the bank's favor was passed, but it stipulated that the
plaintiff banks would have the freedom to pursue their obligations against the principal
debtor. The plaintiff bank contested the validity of the clause in the decree against the surety
only after exhausting its remedies against the principal debtor in its appeal before the
Supreme Court. The appellant's appeal was granted, and the condition mentioned above in
the decree was set aside. Therefore, the bank is entitled to pursue its claim against the
principal debtor.
 Union Bank of India v. Mukku Narayan (AIR1987SC1078)

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank holding the decree should proceed against the
mortgaged property first, followed by the major debtor, the guarantor, and the property itself.

He liability of the surety would also be reduced or eliminated if the principal debtor's
liability is decreased, e.g., after the creditor has recovered a portion of the sum owed from
him outside of his property, the liability of the decree, or otherwise extinguished in whole or
in part by the statute.The phrase "unless it is otherwise provided by the contract" indicates
that even though the principal debtor's liability is extensive, the surety can limit or fix it. He
can hold himself accountable for a set sum regardless of the principal debtor's the liability.

Maharaja of Banaras vs. Har Narayan Singh (ILR1906):

The bond in question stipulated what would happen if the lessor defaulted and the
sureties failed to pay. The plaintiff would have been entitled to receive payment from them
directly, through attachment; etc.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the surety for unpaid
rent and interest. The court determined that the plaintiff was only entitled to rent arrears
because the bond made no mention of the interest.

Extent of Surety’s liability:

For what the principal debtor is liable, the surety is liable. The surety's liability may be
greater or less than the principal debtor's, but it may never be greater. This is subject to a
special contract. The pleasant rule is that the surety is not obliged to be liable for anything
after he has committed. The phrase "coextensive with that of the principal debtor" indicates
the maximum amount of the surety's obligation. He bears responsibility for the entire amount
that the principal debtor is liable for and nothing more.6

6
https://monad.edu.in/img/media/uploads/liability%20of%20surety.
 Sajita Engineering vs. New Bank of India (AIR1992Ori237):

The suit's dismissal against the surety was deemed improper, even in cases where the
principal debtor was the target of the installments and the suit was declined against him. The
property of the guarantee, which the creditor had mortgaged as part of his guarantee, was
permitted to be taken into his possession.

KT Sutochana vs. Orissa SFCAIR (1992) Ori157

The section states that if a loan bond's payment is guaranteed, the surety is accountable
for paying back the loan's principal as well as any interest or other costs that may have
accrued. When a company's directors guaranteed its overdrafts and the banker recovered part
of the loan by disposing of some company goods, the Madras High Court held that the
surety’s liability had decreased accordingly. Certainties are required parties in order to
proceed against the principal debtor.7

CHAPTER 2: CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NO LIABILITY FOR SURETY

Though surety has liability for his guarantee to the principal debtor and creditor, there are
some situations where he can be free from liability by discharging the contract. Under the Indian
Contract Act, despite the fact that the surety has some rights and liabilities, it provides certain
provisions where the surety is no longer responsible for the contract between them. So the
principal debtor and creditor cannot have the right to claim or sue him. Under Indian contract act,
discharge of surety can be provided and explained by 130,131,133, 134, and 135,139.

7
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/surety-rsquo-s-liability-under-indian-contract-act
Discharge by Revocation

Revocation by Notice:

The cancellation of a continuing guarantee by the surety for upcoming transactions is

allowed under Section 130 of the ICA. It states that the surety has the right to revoke a
continuing guarantee for future transactions by giving notice to the creditor. The surety should
explicitly explain in the notice that his obligations for subsequent transactions are ending. The
surety, however, is unable to cancel a specific assurance for a responsibility that has already
materialized. A surety is still responsible for the agreements that have previously been made.

Revocation by Death:

According to Section 131of the ICA, the continued assurance for ongoing transactions
may be revoked. If the surety passes away, he or she is discharged from liability, and any future
or ongoing transactions will not be the responsibility of his or her legal successors. They will be
held accountable, nevertheless, if the guarantee contract so specifies.

Discharged for Misconduct

Variation in Contract’s Terms:

According to Section 133 of the ICA, any changes to the Guarantee Contract made by the
Creditor and Principal Debtor will discharge the Surety's Liability. A surety is solely accountable
for the conditions that he has committed to; hence, he will be relieved from liability right away if
the principal debtor and the creditor alter the terms of the agreement without first contacting or
alerting the surety. This idea was also established in the Bonar v. McDonald case, when the
judge determined that the guarantor would not be held liable due to a material difference in the
terms of the contract.
Discharge or Release of Principal Debtor:

When the principal debtor's primary liability is released or discharged, Section 134 of the
ICA includes a discharge of the surety's secondary liability. A contract with the creditor or any
action or inaction on the part of the creditor might both release the principal debtor from liability.
Therefore, in these situations, the surety's liability is also discharged when the principal debtor is
released from his obligations.8

Compounding by Creditor with Principal Debtor:

Section 135 of ICA allows the surety's liability to be released when the creditor
compounds with the principal debtor or guarantees the principal debtor that he won't sue the
principal debtor in the event of a performance default. Under these circumstances, the surety's
liability is released unless the principal debtor agrees to such a contract.9

Impairing surety's remedies:

Section 139 of ICA releases the surety from its obligations in the event that the creditor
has taken any actions that conflict with the surety's rights. Additionally, if the said act or
omission affects the surety's future remedies against the principal debtor, the surety's liabilities
are considered discharged. 10

8
“Principal and Surety: Discharge of Surety: Mistake.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 12, no. 4, 1914, pp. 330–31. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.2307/1276055.

9
Principal and Surety. Release of Surety. Extension of Time on Debt by Trustee Acting upon His Own Responsibility.” Virginia Law Review,
vol. 17, no. 7, 1931, pp. 735–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1066500.

10
https://indianlawportal.co.in/discharge-of-suretys-liability/
 CHAPTER 3: RIGHTS OF SURETY

In a contract of guarantee, suretyship is one that plays a vital role in which surety is one
party who guarantees for the party principal debtor who borrowed some debt from the creditor
who gives money to him on the contract of guarantee that if the principal debtor fails to repay the
borrowed amount, he will pay on behalf of him if and only if he fails to repay. By giving surety
to someone, he not has the liability and responsibility also he may have certain rights. The surety
has rights against the principal debtor, against the creditor, and also against co-sureties under the
Indian Contract Act. 11

Right against principal debtor:

Though surety is impliedly made by principal debtor even his duty is only for principal
debtor, he has some rights against principal debtor under ICA section 140 and 145. Right of
Subrogation and Right of Indemnify under ICA.

1. Right of Subrogation:

Under Indian Contract Act 1872 section 140 gives rights for surety against Principal
debtor. Subrogation is a term which meant substitution, the surety repay the amount if the
principal debtor makes any default in payment, so he acts as a substitution for him to repay the
amount to the creditor. And once the surety repaid the borrowed amount he has the right against
principal debtor as creditor has, where he can claim amount to be recovered. After completing
the obligation on the principal debtor's behalf, this right enables the surety to assume the role of
the creditor and pursue payment from the principal debtor or any collateral or other security
offered.12

11
Loyd, William H. “The Surety.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, vol. 66, no. 1/2, 1917, pp. 40–68. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.2307/3314322. Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.
12
Gallagher, Edward Graham. “SURETY’S SUBROGATION TO OBLIGEE’S RIGHT OF SETOFF.” The Forum (Section of Insurance,

Negligence and Compensation Law, American Bar Association), vol. 18, no. 1, 1982, pp. 73–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762727.
Case law : Mamta Ghose v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1987 Cal. 180

The right of subrogation is not only effective following the surety's payment, but some of
its provisions may also be enforced prior to that. The Calcutta High court addressed this type of
circumstance in the case of Mamata Ghose v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. In this instance, the
surety learned that the major debtor was selling his possessions one by one as the obligation
approached maturity out of concern that the surety may seize them after payment. The surety
therefore asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent the major debtor from doing this. There,
it was stated that the surety has an equitable right to compel the principal debtor to settle the
obligation and thereby free the surety from having to pay it out of pocket. It is founded on the
idea that it is unfair for a man to constantly have a cloud over his head, thus he should be entitled
to have it removed. Therefore, it doesn't matter that the creditor hasn't filed a lawsuit or that he
hasn't made any demands. The action arises when the principle debtor makes a threat to violate
the promises that the surety has guaranteed, and an injunction may be issued even if the principal
debtor lacks the necessary funds. However, when the obligation is not actual, incurred, or
definite, or if, on its true construction, the guarantee forbids action before the creditor demands
payment, such action will not be valid.

In the case of Kadamba Sugar Industries (P) Ltd v. Devru Ganapathi Hedge Bhairi,8
January 1993,liability to pay arises for both the primary debtor and the sureties; as a result, the
creditor starts a lawsuit against both parties, and the sureties pay the sum after the preliminary
decision. The Supreme Court ruled that in this situation, the sureties might subrogate the lawsuit
to themselves.

2. Right of Indemnify:

Under section 145 of ICA, the surety has right of Indemnify. Sureties can have a claim
against the principal debtor for indemnification. This means that any damages, costs, or
payments incurred on the surety's behalf will be covered by the principle debtor as
compensation.
 The difference between these two above said right is that in section 140, he has the right
to recover the payment from the principal debtor if he makes default in payments and
performance but in section 145 only if the surety suffered any losses or damages by paying such
debt on behalf of principal debtor, he should have right to indemnify as compensation from
principal debtor. As similar to section 124 of ICA which defines contract of indemnify that is if
one party makes promise to save the other party from loss caused to him only by the principal
debtor not by others, likewise there is a agreement between surety and principal debtor that if the
surety has suffer any loss by repaying the borrowed amount, the principal debtor will indemnify
him.

Only a valid payment made to the creditor is eligible for the enforcement of the right of
indemnity. In the matter of Chekkera Ponnamma v. A.S. Thammayya 1982, an unjustified
payment was made. In this instance, the major debtor had purchased four motor vehicles but had
passed away before completing the last payment; as a result, the surety was held accountable for
the obligation. The surety reimbursed the lenders. The surety then filed a lawsuit against the
major debtor's attorneys. The surety was required by the court to provide evidence of the amount
of money gained from the sale of the cars, but he was unable to do so. It was decided that the
surety's payment was improper as a result. As a result, the surety's claim to indemnification was
rejected.

Right against creditor:

Under Indian Contract Act Section 141, the surety has the right to claim securities from
the creditor. In the contract, the principal debtor owes money to the creditor by guarantee
(surety) or, in some instances, by making property a security. When there is a security, the surety
has ownership of it and can claim a portion of it. For instance, if C advances to B his tenant Rs.
2000 on guarantee A, Further B makes the furniture his security for that borrowed amount. In
this case, if the principal debtor makes default, the surety will repay. If the surety repays the
amount to the creditor, then the surety has the right to claim a share in security and also has the
right to deduct the amount on security if he repays more may those rights called as right to set
off. Whether the surety is aware of security or not, once he gives a guarantee, he becomes a
sharer of that security given by the principal debtor.
Case laws: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kaluram 1967 SCR (1) 266 (1966)

The facts of the case are there the co-sureties are those who promise to reimburse the
surety if the surety is unable to reimburse the principal debtor for the sum he has guaranteed. The
surety has rights over co-sureties in addition to rights against individuals who are contract
parties. The creditor and primary debtor had no control over the co-sureties in this case; even if
they were to default, they were not allowed to bring any claims against them. This arrangement
was just between the surety and the co-sureties. Additionally, only the surety is accountable for
their actions; the creditor is not permitted to sue the surety. The Supreme Court gave that, as it
can be shown, the creditor was at fault when the department allowed Jagatram to remove the
forest without making the required loan payments. As a result, the surety cannot be held
responsible for making loan payments because his actions released him from his obligation. The
Indian Contract Act's Section 141 provided a framework for the Supreme Court's conclusion.13

State bank of Saurastra vs. Chitranjan ranganath raja and anr

In this case the appellant (creditor) bank allowed a cash credit Rs. 75000 to the principal
debtor on Feb 1957 on his pledging 5000 tons of groundnut oil and on personal guarantee of the
respondent (surety) to repay the debt on behalf of principal debtor but the trial court held that
there was a negligence on the part of the bank with regard to safe guard the pledged oil tins. Here
the contract of guarantee entered into by the surety with the bank was independent of the pledge
of that oil given by the principal debtor so the court said as per the section 141 of Indian contract
act 1872, the contracts are entered into by misrepresentation made by the creditor so the surety
get discharged from the contract invalid. Sec 141, the surety is entitled to the benefit of every
security which the creditor has against the whether the surety knows of the existence of such
security or not, if the creditor loses without the consent of surety, the surety is discharged from
the contract.14

Right against Co-sureties:

13
https://www.jiwaji.edu/pdf/ecourse/law/8%20-%20Rights%20of%20Surety%20against%20Creditor.pdf
14
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9906-rights-of-surety.html
 The surety not only has a right against the parties to the contract, but he also has the right
over co-guarantees, who are those who guarantee to the surety to repay the amount if the surety
fails to repay the amount that he guarantees to the principal debtor. Here there is only an
agreement between surety and co-sureties; only the surety has the right over them, not the
creditor and principal debtor. They are not allowed to claim rights against co-sureties if they also
default. Also, only the surety becomes liable for their actions; the creditor cannot sue them. 15

1. Right to contribute equally:

Section 146 of the ICA says that the co-sureties have the liability to contribute the
repayments equally for debt unpaid by the principal debtor, and it’s the right of the surety to ask
the co-sureties to contribute the amount for debt equally. For example. A, B, and C are sureties
for the sum of Rs. 3000 lent to E, which makes a default in payment. So here A should contribute
1000, B should contribute 1000, and C should contribute 1000, which are equally contributed by
the sureties to settle the debt.

2. Right to fix the limits on their respective liability:

If the co-sureties were bound by different sums and are liable to pay, the surety has the
right to fix the limit with their respective shares, which is stated under Section 147 of the ICA.
For example, if A, B, and C are co-sureties to D, A would pay 20,000, B would pay 30,000, and
C would pay 40,000; the total sum was 90,000, so if the default happened to the extent of 70,000,
then A would give 20,000, B would give 25000, and C would give 25000.16

CONCLUSION:

15
“Rights of Surety in Securities Held by Co-Surety.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 16, no. 6, 1903, pp. 439–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1323670.
Accessed 18 Oct. 2023.
16
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=rights%20of%20surety&pagenum=1
In this research project I have precisely discussed about what were the liabilities for the surety in
a contract of guarantee. And his nature and extent of liability under section 128 of Indian
Contract Act 1872. Though not only ICA gives about the surety’s liability also provides certain
rights for them. Even though they are responsible for the principal debtor’s debt to the creditor
but under ICA, they can also raise their rights against principal debtor and also creditor. In
certain circumstances their liability also gets discharged from the contract which is said under
Indian contract act as modes of discharge of a surety in a contract. There is a gap in the body of
legal knowledge and customs on the particular obligations and liabilities of sureties in this
context due to the rapidly changing landscape of digital contracts and electronic signatures. The
need for legal precedents and frameworks to fully handle these challenges is expanding as
technology develops. The answer for my research hypothesis is true because apparently based on
the creditworthiness of the principal debtor, the risk and responsibilities of the surety may
increase or decrease.

BIBILIOGRAPHY:
BOOKS:

1. Andrews, Geraldine Mary, and Millett, Richard. Law of Guarantees. United

Kingdom, Sweet & Maxwell, 2011.
2. Bangia, R. K.. The Indian Contract Act. India, Allahabad Law Agency, 1990.
3. Pingrey, Darius Harlan. A Treatise on the Law of Suretyship and Guaranty. United
States, M. Bender, 1901.

JOURNAL ARTICLES:

1. Gallagher, Edward Graham. “SURETY’S SUBROGATION TO OBLIGEE’S RIGHT OF

SETOFF.” The Forum (Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law,
American Bar Association), vol. 18, no. 1, 1982, pp. 73–82.
2. Halperin, Sanford B. “Some Aspects of Guaranty and Suretyship.” The Review of
Insurance Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, 1955, pp. 15–25.
3. Loyd, William H. “The Surety.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American
Law Register, vol. 66, no. 1/2, 1917, pp. 40–68.
4. Principal and Surety. Liability of Surety. Illegal Contract. The Virginia Law Register, vol.
3, no. 8, 1917, pp. 632–33.
5. Principal and Surety. Release of Surety. Extension of Time on Debt by Trustee Acting
upon His Own Responsibility.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 17, no. 7, 1931, pp. 735–36.
6. “Suretyship. Liability of Surety When Principal Debtor Released by Limitation.” Virginia
Law Review, vol. 26, no. 8, 1940, pp. 1076–77.

INTERNET WEBSITES:

1. IndianContractAct(12thedition):RKBangia(AllahabadLawAgency,Faridabad.
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/contract-of-guarantee/.
3. IndianContractAct(12thedition):AvtarSingh(EasternLawAgency,Noida).

CASE LAWS:
Bank of Bihar Ltd vs. Dr Damodar Prasad (AIR1969SC297).

Union Bank of India v. Mukku Narayan (AIR1987SC1078).

Maharaja of Banaras vs. Har Narayan Singh (ILR1906).

Sajita Engineering vs. New Bank of India (AIR1992Ori237).

KT Sutochana vs. Orissa SFCAIR (1992) Ori157.

Mamta Ghose v. United Industrial Bank, AIR 1987 Cal. 180.

Kadamba Sugar Industries (P) Ltd v. Devru Ganapathi Hedge Bhairi,8 January 1993.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kaluram 1967 SCR (1) 266 (1966).

State bank of Saurastra vs. Chitranjan ranganath raja and anr.