Balram Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/458982
SubjectCommercial
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnFeb-19-2002
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 6902 of 2002
JudgeM. Katju and ;Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
Reported in2002(2)AWC910; (2002)2UPLBEC1138
AppellantBalram
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
Appellant AdvocateN.K. Trivedi and ;O.P. Tripathi, Advs.
Respondent AdvocatePrakash Krishan, Adv. and ;S.C.
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.
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.