Skip to main content

Suretys rights in Indian contract act

 SURETY’S Rights by Kalyani

Surety’s rights are explained under section 140, 141, 145-147. A surety has certain rights under the Act, against the following three parties:

  1. Against the principal debtor (Ss. 140-145)

Surety has certain rights against principal debtor:


A)  When the principal debtor makes a default in the performance of his duty, and on such a default, the surety makes the necessary payment or makes performance of all what he is liable for he becomes invested with all the creditor had against the principal debtor. In other words, the surety steps in to the shoes of the creditor and by an action against the principal debtor, he can recover from him all that, which could have been recovered by the creditor. This is known as surety’s right of subrogation.


B)  In a contract of guarantee, when the principal debtor makes a default, the surety has to make payment to the creditor. This payment is made by the payment to the creditor. This payment is made by him on behalf of the principal debtor. After making such payment, he can recover the same from the principal debtor. Such a claim can be made by the surety only in respect of the sums he has rightfully paid under the guarantee, but not the sums which he has paid wrongfully.

      2.   Against creditor (Ss. 141)

Right to securities with the creditor

 It has been noted above that after the surety has performed his duty under the contract of guarantee, he is subrogated to all the rights which are available to the creditor against the principal debtor. Section 141 makes a further provision in that regard, according to which a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has against the principal debtor at that time when the contract of surety ship is entered into. It is, however, not necessary that at the time of making the contract, the surety should be aware of the securities which the creditor had.

 

Loss of securities without creditor’s negligence

Loss of the securities by the creditor results in the discharge of the surety. If, however, the hypothecated securities are lost without any fault of the creditor, the surety is not discharged thereby.

Securities received by the creditor after the contract of guarantee:

It has been noted above that according to section 141, a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has at the time when the contract of surety ship is entered into. It means that the surety has no right to those securities which the creditor obtained from the principal debtor after making the contract of guarantee. Therefore, if the creditor parts with the securities which he had obtained subsequent to the making of the contract of guarantee, the surety will not be discharges as a consequence of the loss of such securities

\Surety has no right to goods in hypothecation.

 It may be noted that according to section 141, the surety is entitled to the benefit of such good which are with the creditor. It covers situations where the goods are pledged to the creditor and he has the possession of the goods. If  he loses or parts with the goods, the surety is discharged thereby. In case there is hypothecation of the goods, the goods remain in the possession of the goods and there is no question of his losing or parting with the same. If, therefore, hypothecated goods are lost without any fault of the creditor that will not discharge the surety. In other words, since in the case of the hypothecated goods, the creditor does not have the possession of the goods, the surety cannot invoke the provision of section 141 in such case.

 

 


      

                                   


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct