Supreme Court Allows Bank's Appeal in Guarantee Suit — Suit Not Barred by Limitation. The court held that the limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only upon demand for payment being made and refused.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit filed by a bank against its guarantors for recovery of dues owed by a company. The bank had extended various credit facilities to Gadag Forge Fits (India) Pvt. Ltd., with the respondents acting as guarantors. After the company ceased operations in 1986, the bank sent a demand for payment in 1987, which was denied by the guarantors. The bank filed a suit in 1990, which was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds of limitation, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The bank argued that the guarantees were continuing guarantees and that the limitation period began only after the demand was made and refused. The court analyzed the terms of the guarantees and relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, concluding that the limitation period commenced upon the demand for payment being made and refused, not when the accounts became dormant. The court distinguished this case from precedents, emphasizing that the guarantees explicitly required payment on demand. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the suit was not barred by limitation and decreed the suit in favor of the bank with costs.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Guarantee - Continuing Guarantee - Limitation Period - Contract of Guarantee, 1872, Sections 126, 128, 129, 130 - The court held that the limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only upon demand for payment being made and refused, not when the account becomes dormant. The court found that the suit was filed within the limitation period as the demand was made on 12.10.1987 and refused, thus the suit filed on 16.3.1990 was in time (Paras 16-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the decision of the courts below that the suit was barred by limitation is correct in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and decreed the suit in favor of the bank with costs.

Law Points

  • Contract of Guarantee
  • Continuing Guarantee
  • Limitation Period
  • Demand for Payment
  • Joint and Several Liability
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (SC) (04) 49

Appeal (civil) 6894 of 1997

2006-04-10

Arun Kumar, R V Raveendran

Syndicate Bank

Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Recovery of dues under guarantee agreements.

Remedy Sought

The bank sought recovery of Rs.19,77,478.60 from the guarantors.

Filing Reason

The bank filed the suit after the company failed to pay its dues.

Previous Decisions

The trial court and High Court dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation.

Issues

Whether the suit was barred by limitation Interpretation of continuing guarantee

Submissions/Arguments

The bank argued that the suit was within the limitation period due to the demand made in 1987. The respondents contended that the suit was barred as it was filed beyond the limitation period after the accounts became dormant.

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only upon demand for payment being made and refused, not when the account becomes dormant.

Judgment Excerpts

The limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only upon demand for payment being made and refused. The suit filed within three years therefrom is, therefore, in time.

Procedural History

The bank filed a suit in 1990 after the company was wound up in 1989. The trial court dismissed the suit on limitation grounds, which was upheld by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Contract Act, 1872: 126, 128, 129, 130
  • Limitation Act, 1963: 55, 113
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Bank Guarantee Case, Setting Aside High Court Order on Additional Evidence. The Court Held That Alleged Signature Fraud Unrelated to Bank Guarantee Could Not Justify Interference Under Limited Scope for Encashment Restr...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Regular Second Appeals in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. Court upheld trial and first appellate court decisions that plaintiff failed to prove title and posse...