You are on page 1of 16











AUGUST, 2018


PATNA, 800001

I hereby declare that the project entitle “Rights of security against Creditor” submitted by me at
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY is a record of bona fide project work carried out
by me under the guidance of our mentor Mr. Vijay kumar Vimal. I further declare that the work
reported in this project has not been submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full,
for the award of any other degree or diploma in this university or in any other university.


(Prasenjit Tripathi)

Roll no.-1748

It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in isolation is inexplicable to
an extent. This research work, although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of lot of people
who remained in veil, who gave their intense support and helped me in the completion of this

Firstly, I am very grateful to my subject teacher Mr. Vijay Kumar Vimal without the kind support
and help of whom the completion of this project was a herculean task for me. He donated his
valuable time from his busy schedule to help me to complete this project. I would like to thank
him for his valuable suggestion towards the making of this project.

I am highly indebted to my parents and friends for their kind co-operation and encouragement
which helped me in completion of this project. I am also thankful the library staff of my college
which assisted me in acquiring the necessary sources for the compilation of my project.

Last but not the least; I would like to thank the almighty who kept me mentally strong and in good
health to concentrate on my project and to complete it in time.

I thank all of them!


1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5

Section 127 of Indian Contract Act ............................................................................................. 5

2. Contract of Guarantee .............................................................................................................. 6

Differences Between Indemnity And Guarantee ........................................................................ 7

Similarities Between Indemnity And Guarantee ......................................................................... 9

3. Rights of Surety ..................................................................................................................... 10

Discharge of Surety ................................................................................................................... 11

4. Conclusion and Suggestion ................................................................................................... 15

BIBILIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 16
Section 126 of Indian Contract Act defines Contract of guarantee. It defines a contract of
guarantees a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of
his default.1

The person who gives the guarantee is called “surety”. The person of whose default the guarantee
is given is called the “Principal debtor”. The person to whom the guarantee is given is called the

Contract of guarantee can be of two types. It can be oral or written. However, for a contract to
form in between the parties there should be meeting of minds that means all three parties should
be privy to the contract. Contract of guarantee is a promise to answer for the payment of the debt
that the principal debtor takes from the creditor or the performance of some duty. IN case the
principal debtor fails who is in the first instance liable to pay or perform. Therefore, the primary
liability to pay is of the principal debtor. Whereas, the secondary liability is of the Surety i.e. when
the principal debtor fails to pay, the surety comes into role.

Therefore, the contract of guarantee is to indemnify if principal debtor fails to fulfil his promise.
In this indemnify is not equal to the contract of indemnify in Section 124 of ICA.

Section 127 of Indian Contract Act

This section basically talks about the consideration in a contract of guarantee. The consideration
for the surety’s promise may move from either the creditor or the Principal Debtor. The
consideration may benefit the surety but it is not necessary that surety should receive any benefit
from the consideration in contract of guarantee. This section speaks of the consideration i.e any
benefit that is received by the principal debtor or creditor at the surety’s request.

The word “done” in this section is the past benefit to the principal debtor that can be considered
as good consideration.2

POLLOCK & MULLA –“The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts”, 14 th Edition 2012, editor- Nilima
Bhadbhade, volume- ii , 1335-1336.
Law Contracts of Indemnity, available at
Under section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, guarantee is a contract to perform or discharge the
duty of any third individual in case of his/her default3. It is also an instance of acting as a cover for
compensation to protect intended parties from losses.

There are three categories of individuals involved in any instance of guarantee. The person
provides the security is the “surety” or “guarantor”, the person whose action or liability is being
covered is known as “principal debtor”, the person to whom the principal debtor is originally liable
is known as “creditor” .There exists a tripartite agreement between the three to the use of contract
of guarantee.

There are different types of guarantees. One of them being “Fidelity Guarantee” , the surety in
this case assures the creditor the good intention and purpose of the principal debtor and is liable in
case of any mal-actions on part of the principal debtor as seen in Radha Kanta Pal V. United bank
of India Ltd AIR 1955 Cal 217.4

There are instances of bank guarantee as well where the bank undertakes the role of surety to
protect the creditor’s commercial rights . The contracts of guarantee as under bank guarantee also
include conditional and unconditional guarantees, where in the former surety is liable only when
some proof or testimony of the principal debtor’s default, whereas in the latter no such proof or
testimony is required . The duty of the surety to pay is a fixed legal responsibility.

There is also the concept of “Continuing Guarantee” which applies towards more than one single
transaction. Though it may be stipulated by putting up any kind of specific limit- time or capital.
As seen in Bhagvandas Rangildas Vani V. Secy. State for India5 guarantee for payments by
installments cannot be construed as an instance of continuing guarantee. It is elucidated in section
129 of the Indian Contract act.

Law Contracts of Indemnity, available at
Radha Kanta Pal V. United bank of India Ltd AIR 1955 Cal 217
Bhagvandas Rangildas Vani V. Secy. State for India AIR 1926 Bom 465
Differences Between Indemnity And Guarantee

1. Contracts of Guarantee unlike contracts of indemnity are contracts where three parties are
involved.6 In other words while contracts of guarantee involve the surety, principal debtor and
creditor, contracts of indemnity involve only the indemnifier and the indemnified. Thus contracts
of guarantee involve more parties than contracts to indemnify.

2. In a contract of guarantee there are contracts between the principal debtor and creditor, the
creditor and the surety as well as an express or implied contract between the debtor and the surety.
In case of a contract of indemnity only the first two contracts are existent with no such
corresponding third request .

These two differences mentioned have been highlighted in Ramchandra B Loylka V.Shapurji
N.Bhownagree (1940) BOM 5527 by Justice Kania and Beaumont CJ in unanimity. They
contended that under sections 126 and 145 of the Indian contract act, any case of guarantee should
have three parties and subsequent contracts between them . This acts as primary criteria to judge
if it is an instance of guarantee or indemnity in case the contract fails to mention so expressly.

3. In case of guarantee two types of liabilities exist- primary and secondary. The primary
liability lies with the principal debtor that is he is to be charged first in case of default followed by
secondary liability on the surety . In case of indemnity there are no such differentiations of liability
with parties being treated at par. But in guarantee a creditor can be asked to first enforce his primary
right against the principal debtor before reaching out for the surety. Thus enforcement of contract
of guarantee is different from enforcing contract of indemnity.

4. In Contracts of Indemnity, indemnifier cannot recover any loss incurred due to the
compensation paid as his responsibility to indemnity holder but in case of guarantee the surety has
the right to claim compensation from the principal debtor after paying the creditor . This rule has

POLLOCK & MULLA –“The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts”, 14 th Edition 2012, editor- Nilima
Bhadbhade, volume- ii , 1335-1336.
Ramchandra B Loylka V.Shapurji N.Bhownagree (1940) BOM 552
been explained in Radha Kanta Pal V. United bank of India Ltd.8 Thus guarantee consists of a duty
to payback which is absent in indemnity.

5. Contracts of indemnity are seemingly less complicated than contracts of guarantee as the
latter has three parties with three sub-contracts as compared to the former which has two parties
with two sub contracts .

6. Contracts of indemnity consist of original liability not collateral liability which would
make it a contract of guarantee . This rule has been explained in Mahabir Prasad V. Siri Narayan
AIR 1918 Pat 3459.

7. While contracts of indemnity are formed at the request of indemnifier, guarantee contracts
are formed at the instance of the principal debtor . Indemnity is also closely associated with
occurrence of actual loss while in contracts of guarantee the legal liability stands confirmed and
fixed .

8. As explained in Guild and co. V. Conrad (1894) 2 QB 885, promise to be “independently

and primarily” liable is not a guarantee though it may be an instance of indemnity . Guarantee thus
is an instance of binding and collateral actions where the responsibility is shared between the
principal debtor and the surety.

9. A contract of indemnity does not allow any action any action on the person who has caused
loss as indemnity holder is only allowed to sue the promisee . This scope is wider in the contracts
of guarantee. This rule has been explained in K.V.Periyamianna Marakkayar and Sons V. Banians
and Co. (1929) 49 Mad 15610.

Radha Kanta Pal V. United bank of India Ltd AIR 1955 Cal 217
Mahabir Prasad V. Siri Narayan AIR 1918 Pat 345
K.V.Periyamianna Marakkayar and Sons V. Banians and Co. (1929) 49 Mad 156.
Similarities Between Indemnity And Guarantee

1. Contracts of guarantee and contracts of indemnity perform the similar role of providing
security to creditors in case a third party fails to perform his duty in a contract . Thus they play a
very vital role in protecting commercial activities from losses by acting as safeguards in case of
anyone’s default, which promotes risk taking and entrepreneurship in businesses. They are
protective security covers in both the instances wherein parties have certain rights and duties they
are supposed to perform in order to reap the benefits of the provisions of the agreement.

2. Neither contract of indemnity nor contract of guarantee is dependent upon the Latin
principle of uberrima fidei . The term is used for describing bona fide disclosure of all associated
facts and circumstances, primarily in insurance laws. However in the context of indemnity and
guarantee it is perfectly fine if parties do or do not reveal all the events as they are not obligated
by law to do so. This has been explained in the cases of British India General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
AIR 1971 Bom 10211 (for contracts of indemnity) and Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Bank
of Baroda, AIR 1977 Kant 204 at 20712 (for contracts of guarantee).

British India General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 Bom 102
Hukumchand Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Bank of Baroda, AIR 1977 Kant 204 at 207.
A contract of guarantee being a contract, all rights that are available to the parties of a contract are
available to a surety as well. The following are the rights specific to a contract of guarantee that
are available to the surety.

Rights against creditor

1. Right to securities

As per section 141, a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has
against the principal debtor at the time when the contract of suretyship is entered into whether the
surety knows about the existance of such securty or not; and if the creditor loses or without the
consent of the surety parts with such security, the surety is discharged to the extent of the value of
the security.13


 C advances to B, his tenant, 2000/- on the guarantee of A. C also has a further security for
2000/- by a mortgage of B's furniture. C cancels the mortgage. B becomes insolvent and C
sues A on his guarantee. A is discharged of his liability to the amount of the value of the
 C, a creditor, whose advance to B is secured by a decree, also receives a guaratee from A.
C afterwards takes B's goods in execution under the decree and then without the knowledge
of A, withdraws the execution. A is discharged.
 A as surety for B makes a bond jointly with B to C to secure a loan from C to B. Afterwards,
C obtains from B a further security for the same debt. Subsequently, C gives up the further
security. A is not discharged.

This section recognizes and incorporates the general rule of equity as expounded in the case of
Craythorne vs Swinburne that the surety is entitled to every remedy which the creditor has agains
the principal debtor including enforcement of every security.

The expression "security" in section 14114 means all rights which the creditor had against property
at the date of the contract. This was held by the SC in the case of State of MP vs Kaluram AIR
1967. In this case, the state had sold a lot of felled trees for a fixed price in four equal installments,
the payment of which was guaranteed by the defendent. The contract further provided that if a
default was made in the payment of an installment, the State would get the right to prevent further
removal of timber and the sell the timber for the the realization of the price. The buyer defaulted
but the State still did not stop him from removing further timber. The surety was then sued for the
loss but he was not held liable.

It is important to note that the right to securities arises only after the creditor is paid in full. If the
surety has guaranteed only part of the debt, he cannot claim a propertional part of the securities
after paying part of the debt. This was held in the case of Goverdhan Das vs Bank of Bengal

2. Right of set off

If the creditor sues the surety, the surety may have the benefit of the set off, if any, that the principal
debtor had against the creditor. He is entitled to use the defences that the principal debtor has
against the creditor. For example, if the creditor owes the principal debtor something, for which
the principal debtor could have counter claimed, then the surety can also put up that counter claim.

Discharge of Surety

A surety is said to be discharged from liability when his liability comes to an end. Indian Contract
Act 1872 specifies the following conditions in which a surety is discharged of his liability –

SEC 141 ICA,1862.
Goverdhan Das vs Bank of Bengal 1891
1. Section 130 - By a notice of revocation

2. Section 131 - By death of surety

3. Section 133 - By variance in terms of contract - A variance made without the consent of the
surety in terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, discharges the surety
as to the transactions after the variance.

Illustrations -
A becomes a surety to C for B's conduct as manager in C's bank. Afterwards, B and C contract
without A's consent that B's salary shall be raised and that B shall be liable for 1/4th of the losses
on overdrafts. B allows a customer to overdraft and the bank loses money. A is not liable for the

A guarantees C against the misconduct of B in an office to which B is appointed by C. The

conditions of employment are defined in an act of legislature. In a subsequent act, the nature of
the office is materially altered. B misconducts. A discharged by the change from the future liablity
of his guarantee even though B's misconduct is on duty that is not affected by the act.

B appoints C as a salesperson on a fixed yearly salary upon A's guarantee on due account of sales
by C. Later on, without A's consent, B and C contract that C will be paid on commission basis. A
is not liable for C's misconduct after the change.

C promises to lends 5000Rs to B on 1st March. A guarantee the repayment. C gives the money to
B on 1st January. A is discharged of his liability because of the variance in as much as C may
decide to sue B before 1st march.

4. Section 134 - By discharge of principal debtor - The surety is discharged by any contract
between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the principal debtor is discharged; or by
any action of the creditor the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor.


A gives a guarantee to C for goods to be delivered to B. Later on, B contracts with C to assign his
property to C in lieu of the debt. B is discharged of his liability and A is discharged of his liability.
A contracts with B to grow indigo on A's land and deliver it to B at a fixed price. C guarantees A's
performance. B diverts a stream of water that is necessary for A to grow indigo. This action of B
causes A to be discharged of the liability. Consequenty C is discharged of his suretyship as well.

A contracts with B to build a house for B. B is to supply timber. C guarantees A's performance. B
fails to supply timber. C is discharged of his liability.

If the principal debtor is released by a compromise with the creditor, the surety is discharged but
if the principal debtor is discharged by the operation of insolvancy laws, the surety is not
discharged. This was held in the case of Maharashtra SEB vs Official Liquidator 198216.

5. Section 135 - By composition, extension of time, or promise not to sue - A contract between
the principal debtor and the creditor by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises
to give time to, or promises to not sue the principal debtor, discharges the surety unless the surety
assents to such a contract.

It should be noted that as per section 136, if a contract is made by the creditor with a third person
to give more time to the principal debtor, the surety is not discharged. However, in the case of
Wandoor Jupitor Chits vs K P Mathew AIR 198017, it was held that the surety was not
discharged when the period of limitation got extended due to acknowledgement of debt by the
principal debtor.

Further, as per section 13718, mere forbearance to sue or to not make use of any remedy that is
available to the creditor against the principal debtor, does not automatically discharge the surety.

Illustration -
B owes C a debt guarateed by A. The debt becomes payable. However, C does not sue B for an
year. This does not discharge A from his suretyship.

Maharashtra SEB vs Official Liquidator 1982
Wandoor Jupitor Chits vs K P Mathew AIR 1980
SEC 137, ICA, 1862.
It must be noted that forbearing to sue until the expiry of the period of limitation has the legal
consequence of discharge of the principal debtor and thus as per section 134, will cause the surety
to be discharged as well. If section 134 stood alone, this inference was correct. However, section
137 explicitly says that mere forbearance to sue does not discharge the surety. This contradiction
was removed in the case of Mahanth Singh vs U B Yi by Privy Council. It held that failure to sue
the principal debtor until recovery is banned by period of limitation does not discharge the surety.

6. Section 139 - By imparing surety's remedy - If the creditor does any act that is inconsistent
with the rights of the surety or omits to do an act which his duty to surety requires him to do, and
the eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired, the
surety is dischared.

Illustrations -
C contracts with B to build a ship the payment of which is to be made in installments at various
stages of completion. A guarantee's C's performance. B prepays last two installments. A is
discharged of his liability.

A appoints M as an apprentice upon getting a guarantee of M's fidelity by B. A also promises that
he will at least once a month see M make up the cash. A fails to do this. M embezzeles. B is
discharged of his suretyship.

A lends money to B with C as surety. A also gets as a security the mortgate to B's furniture. B
defaults and A sells his furniture. However, due to A's carelessness very small amount is received
by sale of the furniture. C is discharged of the liability.

In the case of State Bank of Saurashtra vs Chitranjan Ranganath Raja 198019, the bank failed
to properly take care of the contents of a godown pledged to it against a loan and the contents were
lost. The court held that the surety was not liable for the amount of the goods lost.

Creditor's duty is not only to take care of the security well but also to realize it proper value. Also,
before disposing of the security, the surety must be informed on the account of natural justice so
that he can have the option to take over the security by paying off the debt. In the case of

State Bank of Saurashtra vs Chitranjan Ranganath Raja
Hiranyaprava vs Orissa State Financial Corp AIR 199520, it was held that if such a notice of
disposing off of the security is not given, the surety cannot be held liable for the shortfall.

However, when the goods are merely hypothecated and are in the custody of the debtor, and if
their loss is not because of the creditor, the suerty is not discharged of his liability.


Guarantee is an undertaking to answer for another's liability and collateral thereto. It is a
collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another in case he does not pay it. It is a provision to
answer for the payment of some debt, or the performance of some duty in the case of failure of
some person who, in the first instance, is liable for such payment or performance.

Guarantee is an undertaking to be collaterally responsible for the debt, default or miscarriage

of another. In a banking context it is an undertaking given by the guarantor to the banker
accepting responsibility for the debt of the principal debtor, the customer, should he or she
Subsequently surety has different rights againsts the creditor such as Claim to any set off: The
surety on being called upon to pay, can claim any set-off to which the principal debtor is entitled
from the creditor and Access to the securities of the debtor with the creditor: The surety
can, after paying the guaranteed debt, compel the creditor to assign to him all the securities
taken by the creditor either before or at the time of the contract of guarantee, whether the surety
was aware of them or not.

Hiranyaprava vs Orissa State Financial Corp AIR 1995.
Daruwalla, Doctrine of Consideration.
Desai S.T., Partnership Act, 4th edn. [1970].
Desai T.R., Contract Act, 18th edn. [1976].
Dutt Ashoka, C., India Contract Act.
Dugar, S.M., Law Relating to Restrictive & Unfair Trade
Goswami, V.G., Labour and Industrial Laws [8th edn. 2004-2008].
Mulla's, Transfer of Property Act, (9th edn.).
Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract Act & Specific Relief Act.
Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Partnership Act (6th edn.) [2002].
Ram Chandra V.G., The Law of Contract in India.
Suba Rao, G.C.,
Sub Rao G.C. Venkata Law of Contracts.
Subrah Manyam,
& Singhal , Indian Contract Act, [3rd edn. 1989].

All India Reports.

Allahabad Law Journal.
Allahabad Weekly Cases.
Bombay High Courts Reports.
Calcutta Law Journal.