The Supreme Court of India in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) through LRs & Others (2026 INSC 205) examined the extent of liability of a guarantor when a creditor allows the principal debtor to withdraw funds beyond the sanctioned limit without the consent of the surety. The case primarily involved the interpretation of Sections 133 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deal with the discharge of a surety due to a variance in contractual terms or due to acts or omissions of the creditor impairing the surety’s remedy.
The Supreme Court clarified that when the creditor varies the terms of the original contract without the consent of the surety, the surety is discharged only for the transactions occurring after such variation. The Court rejected the view that the surety must either be liable for the entire debt or be completely discharged. Instead, it held that the liability of the surety continues for the amount originally guaranteed but not for the additional amount advanced without the surety’s consent.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3200 of 2016
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Background and Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from a loan transaction between Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., the appellant, and M/s Darshak Trading Company, which was the principal borrower.
On 30 October 1993, the borrower obtained a cash credit facility from the bank for a sanctioned limit of ₹4,00,000. The borrower hypothecated its mercantile goods as security for the loan. Respondents in the case stood as guarantors for the loan and executed contracts of guarantee in favour of the bank.
The controversy began when the borrower allegedly withdrew amounts far exceeding the sanctioned limit. According to the bank, the borrower managed to overdraw funds with the help of certain bank officials. Eventually, the borrower defaulted on repayment.
Due to the default, the bank initiated legal proceedings to recover ₹26,95,196.75 along with interest from the borrower and the guarantors.
In 1995, the bank filed Lavad Suit No.181/1995 before the Board of Nominees for recovery of the outstanding dues. The borrower was arrayed as the principal defendant, and the guarantors were impleaded as co-defendants in their capacity as sureties.
The Board of Nominees delivered its judgment on 9 July 2001. The tribunal decreed the suit against the principal borrower and ordered recovery of the outstanding amount from him along with interest at 21 percent per annum. However, the claim against the guarantors was dismissed. The Board held that the guarantors were not liable because the bank had allowed withdrawals beyond the sanctioned limit. Consequently, the restraint order on the properties of the guarantors was vacated.
Procedural History
Aggrieved by the decision of the Board of Nominees, the bank filed an appeal before the Gujarat State Co-Operative Tribunal.
In 2007, the Tribunal allowed the bank’s appeal partially. It held that the guarantors were liable for the amount originally guaranteed, that is ₹4,00,000, along with interest. The Tribunal also issued an injunction restraining the guarantors from alienating their immovable properties.
The guarantors then challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Gujarat High Court through Special Civil Application No.17125 of 2007.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court held that since the bank had permitted the borrower to withdraw funds beyond the sanctioned limit without the knowledge or consent of the guarantors, the sureties stood discharged entirely from their liability. According to the High Court, the liability of a guarantor could not be divided between the sanctioned amount and the excess amount.
The High Court reasoned that the sureties could either be liable for the entire loan amount or not liable at all. It relied upon Section 139 of the Indian Contract Act to conclude that the sureties had been discharged due to the creditor’s conduct.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the bank approached the Supreme Court by filing a civil appeal.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the guarantors were completely discharged from liability due to the bank allowing the borrower to withdraw funds beyond the sanctioned limit, or whether they remained liable for the amount originally guaranteed.
This required the Court to interpret and apply Sections 133 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 126: Contract of Guarantee
A contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of default. The person giving the guarantee is the surety, the person whose default is guaranteed is the principal debtor, and the person to whom the guarantee is given is the creditor.
Section 128: Liability of Surety
The liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided in the contract.
Section 133: Discharge of Surety by Variance in Terms of Contract
This provision states that any variance in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and creditor, made without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety as to transactions subsequent to the variance.
Section 139: Discharge of Surety by Creditor’s Act or Omission
Under this provision, the surety is discharged if the creditor does any act inconsistent with the rights of the surety or fails to perform a duty owed to the surety, thereby impairing the surety’s remedy against the principal debtor.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Bank
The bank argued that the High Court erred in applying Section 139 of the Contract Act. It contended that the correct provision applicable to the case was Section 133. According to the bank, Section 133 clearly provides that when there is a variance in the terms of the contract without the consent of the surety, the surety is discharged only for the transactions occurring after the variance.
Thus, the guarantors should remain liable for the amount that was originally sanctioned, that is ₹4,00,000, along with interest.
The bank relied on several judicial precedents, including:
- State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered
- Syndicate Bank v. Channaveerappa Beleri
- H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank
These cases emphasised that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and that the creditor may proceed directly against the guarantor.
Respondents (Sureties)
The guarantors argued that the bank’s conduct had fundamentally altered the terms of the contract. They contended that the bank permitted the borrower to withdraw amounts far exceeding the sanctioned limit without their knowledge or consent. If they had been informed, they might have reconsidered their position as guarantors.
The respondents argued that such conduct by the bank impaired their rights and remedies against the principal debtor. Therefore, they claimed to be discharged from liability under Section 139 of the Contract Act.
They supported the reasoning adopted by the High Court and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the bank’s appeal.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the law governing contracts of guarantee and discharge of surety. The Court explained that Chapter VIII of the Indian Contract Act deals with indemnity and guarantee. The liability of the surety is generally co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.
However, Sections 133 to 139 provide circumstances in which a surety may be discharged.
Distinction Between Sections 133 and 139
The Court emphasised that Sections 133 and 139 operate in different contexts. Section 133 applies when there is a variation in the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor without the consent of the surety. In such cases, the surety is discharged only with respect to the transactions occurring after the variation.
On the other hand, Section 139 applies when the creditor’s act or omission impairs the eventual remedy of the surety against the principal debtor.
Thus, Section 139 requires proof that the creditor’s conduct has actually impaired the surety’s ability to recover the amount from the principal debtor.
Application to the Present Case
The Court observed that the guarantors had agreed to stand surety only for the loan amount of ₹4,00,000. However, the bank allowed the borrower to withdraw amounts far exceeding this limit. This constituted a clear variation of the terms of the original contract.
The Court held that under Section 133, such a variation without the consent of the surety discharges the surety only with respect to the transactions occurring after the variation. Therefore, the guarantors could not be held liable for the excess amount withdrawn by the borrower. However, they continued to remain liable for the amount that they had originally guaranteed.
The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the liability of the surety could not be bifurcated. It held that such bifurcation is not only permissible but is required under Section 133.
Rejection of Section 139 Argument
The Court further held that Section 139 was not applicable in the present case. Although the bank permitted overdrawing of funds, this did not impair the sureties’ remedy against the principal debtor.
The sureties still retained the right to recover from the borrower if they were required to pay the debt. Since there was no impairment of the sureties’ remedy, the conditions required for discharge under Section 139 were not satisfied.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the bank. The Court set aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court.
It held that the guarantors were liable to pay the amount of ₹4,00,000 along with applicable interest, which was the amount originally sanctioned to the borrower. However, the guarantors were not liable for the excess amounts withdrawn by the borrower without their consent. The Court clarified that the liability of the guarantors is limited to the extent of the original guarantee.
Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel provides important clarity on the law relating to guarantees under the Indian Contract Act. The Court held that when a creditor allows the principal debtor to exceed the sanctioned loan limit without the consent of the surety, the surety is discharged only with respect to the additional transactions resulting from such variance.
The guarantor continues to remain liable for the amount originally guaranteed. The judgment thus affirms the statutory principle under Section 133 that discharge of surety due to variation in contract is limited to the transactions occurring after such variation.
By setting aside the High Court’s decision and restoring partial liability of the guarantors, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the balanced approach embedded in the law of guarantees, ensuring both fairness to guarantors and protection of creditors’ rights.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams