Balram Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Balram vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 19, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/458982

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/458982
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 19, 2002
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 6902 of 2002
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial - liability of guarantor - principle debtor and guarantor are equally liable to creditor - it is on the discretion of creditor that against whom he wants to take action for the recovery of loan. - - 3. It is well-settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balram

Advocate N.K. Trivedi and ;O.P. Tripathi, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate Prakash Krishan, Adv. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002(2)AWC910; (2002)2UPLBEC1138

Excerpt

commercial - liability of guarantor - principle debtor and guarantor are equally liable to creditor - it is on the discretion of creditor that against whom he wants to take action for the recovery of loan. - - 3. it is well-settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.m. katju and rakesh tiwari, jj1. heard sri n.k. trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri prakash krishan, learned counsel for the respondents.2. the petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 22.1.2002. the petitioner is a guarantor of the loan granted to shiv pal singh by respondent no. 3. it is well-settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. hence, we cannot interfere with the impugned recovery.3. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 should first proceed against the principal debtor before proceeding against the guarantor. there is no such requirement in law, and hence we cannot give any such direction. it is the discretion of the creditor whether to proceed against the principaldebtor or the guarantor. we, however direct that no recovery charges shall be realised from the petitioner. 4. with the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ

1. Heard Sri N.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Krishan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 22.1.2002. The petitioner is a guarantor of the loan granted to Shiv Pal Singh by respondent No. 3. It is well-settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Hence, we cannot interfere with the impugned recovery.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should first proceed against the principal debtor before proceeding against the guarantor. There is no such requirement in law, and hence we cannot give any such direction. It is the discretion of the creditor whether to proceed against the principaldebtor or the guarantor. We, however direct that no recovery charges shall be realised from the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Balram vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Commercial Same Judge M. Katju and ;Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.

Commercial