Promissory Note Case in Bangladesh 2026: Notes, Bills of Exchange and Guarantor Liability

Promissory note case Bangladesh: the 2026 legal framework

A promissory note case Bangladesh creditors bring rests on a short instrument and a long statute. The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 defines the note and the bill of exchange, fixes who is liable on them, presumes consideration in the holder's favour and sets interest where the paper is silent. The Code of Civil Procedure adds a summary procedure that forces the defendant to ask for leave before it can defend. What the law does not offer is a criminal shortcut: section 138 punishes the dishonour of cheques only.

This guide covers notes, bills of exchange and hundis as civil instruments: negotiability, presentment, dishonour, noting and protest, the section 118 presumptions, interest, the choice of forum and limitation. It then turns to the people most often sued alongside the maker: guarantors, under the Contract Act 1872 and in Artha Rin Adalat cases. Cheque prosecutions and bank-suit defence have their own TRW guides, linked where they matter.

Summary: A promissory note or bill of exchange is enforced in Bangladesh by a civil suit, not a criminal complaint. The holder may sue under the summary procedure in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the defendant needs leave to defend, or by an ordinary money suit; disputes between traders may now belong in a Commercial Court, and a bank's claim belongs in the Artha Rin Adalat. Section 118 presumes consideration, section 80 supplies 6 per cent interest where none is stated, and claims must be filed within three years under articles 69 to 80 of the Limitation Act. A guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the debtor's under section 128 of the Contract Act.

Key point: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to "any cheque" and to nothing else. A dishonoured promissory note or bill of exchange cannot found a section 138 prosecution, and the 2026 amendment to the Act changed only which criminal court tries cheque cases. The holder of a note or bill must win in the civil courts, so the instrument, the notice of dishonour and the limitation date need to be right from the start.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What counts as a promissory note or bill of exchange

Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 defines a promissory note as a written instrument, other than a bank-note or currency-note, containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a certain sum of money only, to or to the order of a certain person or to bearer.[1] Section 5 defines a bill of exchange in parallel terms, but as an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing another person to pay. A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and payable on demand.[1]

The illustrations to section 4 show where the line falls. "I promise to pay B or order Taka 500" is a promissory note, and so is an acknowledgement of indebtedness payable on demand for value received. "Mr B, I O U Taka 1,000" is not, nor is a promise to pay a sum "and all other sums which shall be due", a promise subject to a deduction, or a promise tied to an uncertain event.[1] Paper that fails the test can still prove a debt in an ordinary money suit; it simply loses the statutory advantages discussed below.

Negotiability and the holder in due course

A negotiable instrument is a note, bill or cheque payable to order or to bearer. A holder in due course is a person who for consideration becomes its possessor, payee or indorsee before it is overdue and without notice of a defect in the transferor's title.[1] Every prior party is liable to such a holder until the instrument is satisfied, and the maker of a note cannot deny its original validity in a suit by a holder in due course.[1]

Stamp duty is not a formality

Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899 bars an instrument chargeable with duty from evidence unless duly stamped. The proviso that admits most documents on payment of the duty and a penalty expressly excludes a bill of exchange or promissory note.[6] An understamped note cannot be cured at trial, and the creditor is left to prove the underlying loan by other evidence.

Who is liable: sections 30, 32 and 37

Section 32 provides that, absent a contract to the contrary, the maker of a promissory note engages to pay it according to its tenor, and the acceptor of a bill before maturity engages to pay according to the acceptance; in default each must compensate any party for the loss caused.[1] Under section 30 the drawer of a bill engages that it will be accepted and paid on due presentment and, if it is dishonoured, to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonour has been given. The drawee is not liable on a bill until acceptance.[1]

Section 37 sets the hierarchy. The maker of a promissory note, the drawer of a bill until acceptance and the acceptor are liable as principal debtors, and the other parties are liable as sureties for them. Section 38 adds that, as between parties liable as sureties, each prior party is a principal debtor in respect of each subsequent party.[1] An indorser who pays can therefore climb the chain against earlier indorsers and the maker, and in a promissory note case Bangladesh holders can join every party who remains liable.

Consideration and the co-maker who is really a surety

Section 43 provides that an instrument made or transferred without consideration, or for a consideration that fails, creates no obligation between the immediate parties, but a holder for consideration who takes from such a party may recover from the transferor or any prior party.[1] A related trap concerns joint notes. Where one of two joint and several makers signs only as surety, section 132 of the Contract Act 1872 provides that the arrangement does not affect the creditor, even if it knew; the illustration is exactly this case.[7]

Presentment, dishonour, noting and protest

Section 64 requires notes, bills and cheques to be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or drawee; without presentment the other parties are not liable to the holder. A promissory note payable on demand and not payable at a specified place needs no presentment to charge the maker, and none is needed to charge the acceptor of a bill.[1] A bill payable after sight must first be presented for acceptance within a reasonable time, and section 76 excuses presentment where, for example, the maker intentionally prevents it or cannot be found after due search.[1]

Dishonour and notice

A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance when the drawee defaults in accepting it, and a note or bill is dishonoured by non-payment when the maker or acceptor defaults on being duly required to pay. Section 93 then requires the holder to give notice of dishonour to every other party it wants to hold liable; a drawer or indorser of a bill dishonoured by non-acceptance who receives no notice is discharged.[1]

Notice may be oral or written and in any form, but it must say that the instrument has been dishonoured, in what way, and that the recipient will be held liable, and it must be given within a reasonable time. A properly addressed notice that miscarries in the post remains valid.[1] Section 98 dispenses with notice in listed cases, including where the party charged could suffer no damage, cannot be found after due search, or promises unconditionally to pay knowing the facts.[1] Skipping notice is the commonest avoidable loss of a drawer or indorser as a defendant.

Noting and protest by a notary

Section 99 lets the holder of a dishonoured note or bill have the dishonour noted by a notary public within a reasonable time, and section 100 provides that a notarial certificate of the dishonour is a protest.[1] Protest is optional for inland instruments, but section 104 makes it compulsory for a foreign bill where the law of the place where it was drawn requires it, and section 104A treats timely noting as sufficient with formal protest extended later.[1]

Protest is worth the fee in a contested case. Section 119 requires the court, on proof of the protest, to presume dishonour until it is disproved, and section 117 allows the holder to recover the expenses of presenting, noting and protesting in addition to the amount due.[1] Order XXXVII, rule 6, gives the same summary remedies for noting expenses as for the instrument itself.[3]

Why section 138 does not reach notes and bills

Section 138 makes it an offence where "any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker" is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or because it exceeds the arranged amount, subject to presentment within six months, a written demand within thirty days of the bank's information and non-payment within thirty days of the notice.[1] Every element is tied to a cheque and a bank account. A promissory note is not drawn on a banker at all, and a bill of exchange is a cheque only if it meets section 6. No equivalent offence exists for either instrument.

The 2026 reform did not change that. The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2026, Act No. 65 of 2026, dated 10 April 2026, repealed the earlier Ordinance and substituted only clause (c) of section 141, so that section 138 offences on cheques above Tk 5 lakh are tried by a Joint Sessions Judge and the rest by a Magistrate.[2]

For a promissory note case Bangladesh creditors are planning, the consequence is simple. A lender who wants criminal leverage must take a cheque as well, and the rules on that route are in our guides to cheque dishonour in Bangladesh and security cheque cases. Recasting an unpaid note as cheating requires proof of that offence's own elements; a broken promise to pay is not enough.

Choosing the forum for a promissory note case Bangladesh courts will hear

A holder has three civil routes, and a bank creditor has a fourth that excludes the rest. The choice affects speed, the defendant's room to manoeuvre and the interest recoverable.

The Order XXXVII summary suit

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, "Summary procedure on negotiable instruments", is in force in Bangladesh. Rule 1 applies it only to the High Court Division and the District Court, and rule 2 allows suits upon bills of exchange, hundis or promissory notes to be brought under it if the plaintiff so chooses, using the summons in Form No. 4 of Appendix B.[3] Its value lies in rule 2(2): the defendant may not appear or defend without leave, and if leave is not obtained the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.[3]

The Appellate Division settled where such suits are filed in Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd v Bengal Techno Leather Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2014, decided on 25 February 2021. It held that Order XXXVII is procedural and confers no jurisdiction, that the place of suing is governed by sections 15 to 24 of the Code, and that the High Court Division has no original jurisdiction to try a summary suit, and it allowed the plaint to be returned.[4] The court noted earlier High Court Division decisions returning summary plaints for presentation to the District Court.

The ordinary money suit

The Appellate Division also confirmed that the summary procedure is the plaintiff's option, not an obligation.[4] An ordinary money suit suits paper that is defective, a claim that combines the instrument with other dues, or a defendant certain to obtain leave. Filing, valuation and court fees follow the general rules in our guide to civil suit filing in Bangladesh.

The Commercial Courts

The Commercial Courts Act 2026, Act No. 23 of 2026, treats as a commercial dispute one arising from the ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financial institutions and traders, including the enforcement and interpretation of mercantile documents, but excludes matters within the High Court Division's original jurisdiction and the Artha Rin Adalat's jurisdiction.[14] A note or bill given in a trading relationship can therefore belong to a Commercial Court.

That court has its own summary judgment procedure. Under section 10, once summons is served either party may apply; the court fixes a hearing within fifteen days and may give judgment on the pleadings and documents if a party has no prospect of success and no oral evidence is needed.[14] Section 7(1) requires pre-suit mediation where no urgent interim relief is sought, but only if rules prescribing it exist when the suit is filed. The wider regime is in our guide to the Commercial Courts Act.

The Artha Rin Adalat for bank claims

Section 5(1) of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 requires every suit by a financial institution to recover a loan to be filed in and decided by the Artha Rin Adalat, and the Act's definition of loan includes bills discounted or purchased and guarantees.[8] A bank suing on a bill it discounted, or on a guarantee, must go there. The table compares the routes; on a phone, scroll it sideways.

Running an Order XXXVII summary suit

Rule 3(1) requires the court, on the defendant's application, to grant leave to appear and defend upon affidavits disclosing facts that make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration, or other facts the court considers sufficient. Rule 3(2) allows leave unconditionally or on terms, including payment into court or security.[3] The leave hearing is the real contest: a defendant with a triable defence goes to trial, often on terms, while a defendant with none suffers a decree.

The decree under rule 2(2) covers the principal, interest under section 79 or 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the date of suit or the sum in the summons, whichever is less, interest to decree, further interest under section 34 of the Code and fixed costs; rule 2(3) allows immediate execution. Rule 4 lets the court set aside the decree in special circumstances, and rule 5 lets it order the instrument deposited with a court officer.[3] The sequence that lets a promissory note case Bangladesh courts receive move quickly is set out below.

Swipe or scroll →

Securing assets while the suit runs

A summary suit does not freeze assets. Attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, rule 5, requires the court to be satisfied by affidavit that the defendant, intending to obstruct or delay execution, is about to dispose of or remove property.[3] In 2024 the High Court Division set aside an attachment against an alleged guarantor because the bank had shown no such intent.[11] Evidence of transfers or listings should be filed with the application.

The section 118 presumptions and how defendants rebut them

Section 118 directs the court to presume, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made, accepted, indorsed and transferred for consideration; that a dated instrument was made on its date; that an accepted bill was accepted within a reasonable time and before maturity; that transfers were made before maturity; that indorsements were made in the order they appear; that a lost instrument was duly stamped; and that the holder is a holder in due course.[1]

The last presumption is qualified. Where the instrument was obtained from its owner or maker by an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the holder must prove holding in due course.[1] In a promissory note case Bangladesh plaintiffs therefore rarely need to prove the loan behind the note unless the defendant lays a foundation, which is also what Order XXXVII, rule 3, asks for at the leave stage.[3]

Defences that carry weight

• No or failed consideration: effective between immediate parties under section 43, weak against a holder for value.[1]
• Material alteration: section 87 voids an instrument against a non-consenting party unless the change carries out the parties' common intention.[1]
• Not a note at all: conditional promises and IOUs fail section 4.[1]
• Unstamped paper: inadmissible and incurable by penalty.[6]
• No notice of dishonour: may discharge a drawer or indorser under section 93.[1]
• Limitation: section 3 of the Limitation Act requires a time-barred suit to be dismissed even if limitation is not pleaded.[5]

How the criminal courts apply section 118 to cheques is examined in our guide to security cheque cases in Bangladesh.

Interest under sections 79 and 80

Where a note or bill carries interest at a specified rate and fixes no start date, section 79(a) runs interest at that rate from the date of the note, or for a bill from when the amount becomes payable, until tender, realisation or the date of suit. Where the instrument is silent on interest or states no rate, section 79(b) allows 6 per cent a year from the same dates, notwithstanding any collateral agreement on interest.[1]

Section 80 applies the same 6 per cent rate where no rate is specified, from the date the amount ought to have been paid, notwithstanding any agreement between the parties; an indorser pays interest only from receipt of notice of dishonour.[1] The drafting lesson is direct: a creditor who wants a commercial rate must write it into the instrument, because a side letter will not displace the statutory rate.

In a Commercial Court, section 9(11) of the 2026 Act provides, unless the parties agree otherwise, for pre-judgment interest at the contract rate or a rate the court fixes, and post-judgment interest at 2 per cent above the Bangladesh Bank rate unless the judgment orders otherwise.[14] How that sits with sections 79 and 80 is untested, so claimants should plead both.

Limitation: articles 69 to 80 of the Limitation Act

The First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 gives three years for every suit on a note or bill. What differs is the start date, which depends on the instrument's terms.[5]

• Article 69: payable at a fixed time after date, from when it falls due.
• Article 70: a bill payable at or after sight, but not at a fixed time, from presentment.
• Article 71: a bill accepted payable at a particular place, from presentment there.
• Article 72: payable at a fixed time after sight or demand, from when that time expires.
• Article 73: payable on demand, with no writing postponing the right to sue, from the date of the instrument.
• Articles 74 and 75: instalment notes, instalment by instalment or, with a default clause, from the default unless waived.
• Articles 76 to 80: notes delivered through a third person, protested foreign bills, non-acceptance, accommodation bills and any other suit on a bill or note.

Article 73 is where a promissory note case Bangladesh lenders expected to win is most often lost. A demand note is time-barred three years from its own date, however recently the money was demanded.[5] Section 19 gives a fresh period from a signed written acknowledgement made before time expires, and section 20 does the same for part payment.[5] A signed balance confirmation is worth more than any number of reminders. Articles 81 and 82 give a surety three years from payment to sue the principal debtor or a co-surety.[5]

Guarantor liability under the Contract Act 1872

Section 126 defines a contract of guarantee as a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of default, and it may be oral or written. Anything done or promised for the principal debtor's benefit is sufficient consideration under section 127.[7] Section 128 states the rule that drives every guarantor dispute: the surety's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor's unless the contract provides otherwise.[7]

The illustration to section 128 is a negotiable-instrument case. A guarantees payment of a bill of exchange accepted by C; when C dishonours it, A is liable for the bill and for any interest and charges due on it.[7] In a promissory note case Bangladesh creditors bring, a guarantor of the note can therefore be sued for the same principal, interest and dishonour costs as the maker, and nothing in the Act requires the creditor to sue the debtor first. A continuing guarantee covers a series of transactions and can be revoked by notice, or by the surety's death, for future transactions only.[7]

Discharge: sections 133 to 141

The surety is discharged by an unconsented variance in the principal contract (section 133), by release of the principal debtor (section 134), and by a composition with the debtor or a promise to give time or not to sue to which it does not assent (section 135). An agreement to give time made with a third person, mere forbearance to sue and release of a co-surety do not discharge it (sections 136 to 138).[7]

A creditor who impairs the surety's eventual remedy discharges it (section 139), and one who loses or gives up a security without consent discharges it to the extent of that security's value (section 141).[7] How these arguments are run in bank litigation is covered in our guide to defending a bank suit in Bangladesh.

Invalid guarantees and the surety's rights

A guarantee obtained by the creditor's misrepresentation, or by its silence about material circumstances, is invalid (sections 142 and 143), as is one given on terms that a co-surety would join who never does (section 144). A surety that pays steps into the creditor's shoes (section 140), takes the benefit of the creditor's securities (section 141), recovers what it rightfully paid from the debtor (section 145) and can claim contribution from co-sureties (sections 146 and 147).[7]

Guarantors in Artha Rin Adalat cases

When the creditor is a bank or financial institution, the Contract Act is applied through the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003. Section 6(5) requires the institution, when suing the principal debtor, to make any third-party mortgagor or third-party guarantor connected with the loan a defendant. The decree is enforceable against all defendants jointly and severally, and execution proceeds against all of them together.[8]

Two provisos soften the position. In execution the court must as far as possible proceed first against the principal debtor's property, then the third-party mortgagor's and then the guarantor's. And a third-party mortgagor or guarantor who pays takes a transfer of the decree and may execute it against the principal debtor.[8] The second proviso is the statutory form of the subrogation right in section 140 of the Contract Act.

What the High Court Division has made of section 6(5)

A three-judge bench decided the leading case, Md Jahirul Hoque v Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram, 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 20, on 9 June 2022. It held that a guarantor's privilege of paying only after the borrower's default exists only before suit; once both are decreed, they are liable jointly and severally, execution proceeds against them simultaneously, and the first proviso affects only the order in which property is attached.[9] The guarantor still won, because the bank's application for civil detention lacked the verification or affidavit section 34 requires.[9]

Md Akkas Ali v Artha Rin Adalat No. 2, Dhaka, decided on 22 May 2025, applied that reasoning to an unsecured loan. Both guarantors had been detained and released on depositing 25 per cent of the dues and giving a bond; the petitioner did not pay the balance within ninety days. The High Court Division upheld a fresh detention order under section 34(7) and held section 6(5) irrelevant because no property had been mortgaged.[10] Section 34(1) permits civil detention of a judgment-debtor for up to six months.[8]

The protection that remains is procedural. In Abdur Razzak Miah v Governor, Bangladesh Bank, decided on 5 November 2024, the High Court Division declared unlawful an Artha Rin Adalat order attaching an alleged guarantor's land before judgment, because the bank had not satisfied Order XXXVIII, rule 5, and the Adalat's general powers under sections 44 and 57 could not replace that test. Whether the guarantee had been executed at all was left for trial.[11]

Section 12 and the value of the security

Section 12 bars a financial institution from suing until it has sold pledged or liened property in its possession, or mortgaged or hypothecated property over which it holds a power of sale, and adjusted the proceeds, or tried and failed to sell. If it does not, section 12(6) requires the court to deduct the property's value from the decree.[8] For a guarantor this works alongside section 141 of the Contract Act: security the bank held but did not realise should reduce what the guarantor pays.[7]

Has the law changed in 2026?

Not yet. In January 2026 the Law Ministry rejected Bangladesh Bank's draft for a new Artha Rin Adalat law and asked for targeted amendments to the 2003 Act instead; a nine-member committee led by an additional secretary of the Financial Institutions Division was formed to recommend them.[13] As at 20 October 2026 the official consolidated text shows no amendment after 2010, so sections 6(5), 12 and 34 apply in their existing form.[8]

Personal guarantees in bank suits

The form most bank guarantors now sign is prescribed by the regulator. BRPD-1 Circular No. 01 of 4 January 2026, issued under section 45 of the Bank Company Act 1991, requires every scheduled bank to use a uniform personal guarantee form in Bangla and English, with the Bangla version prevailing.[12]

The form is irrevocable and unconditional. The guarantor must pay within seven working days of the bank's first demand without reference to the principal debtor; liability is stated to be co-extensive, and the decree runs jointly and severally in the order of recovery in section 6(5). The guarantee is a continuing security until full repayment, survives part payment, and is unaffected by extensions, concessions or changes made with the guarantor's consent. It can be amended only in writing signed by both sides.[12]

The consent clause is the pivot. Sections 133 and 135 discharge a surety for unconsented variations and extensions of time, and the uniform form preserves liability only where consent was taken.[7] [12] Every rescheduling and renewal file therefore needs the guarantor's signature. The full security package is covered in our guide to loan security documentation, bank-issued guarantees in our guide to bank guarantees in Bangladesh, and court procedure in our guide to the Artha Rin Adalat.

Mistakes to avoid in a promissory note case Bangladesh holders bring

Most lost cases on notes and bills are lost before filing. The recurring errors are these.

• Taking an IOU or conditional promise instead of an unconditional note that satisfies section 4.[1]
• Leaving the note unstamped or understamped, which section 35 of the Stamp Act makes incurable.[6]
• Putting the interest rate in a side letter, which sections 79 and 80 override.[1]
• Missing notice of dishonour to drawers and indorsers, or failing to protest a foreign bill.[1]
• Counting limitation from the demand rather than the date of a demand note under article 73.[5]
• Threatening a section 138 case on paper that is not a cheque.[1]
• Filing a summary suit in the High Court Division, which has no original jurisdiction to try it.[4]
• Varying the loan without the guarantor's written consent, which risks discharge under sections 133 and 135.[7]

What to watch in 2026 and beyond

Three developments will shape this area: the first Commercial Court decisions under section 10 and on how its interest rules sit with sections 79 and 80; the Financial Institutions Division committee's proposals for amending the Artha Rin Adalat Ain; and the first contested cases on consent under the uniform guarantee form.[12] [13] [14]

A promissory note case Bangladesh lenders win is usually decided by three documents: a properly stamped unconditional instrument, a dated notice of dishonour and a signed acknowledgement that keeps limitation alive. TRW acts for holders, makers, guarantors and banks through our banking and finance litigation practice. Contact TRW to have an instrument or guarantee reviewed before the limitation date.

Frequently asked questions

Can I file a criminal case for a dishonoured promissory note?

Not under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which applies only to cheques drawn on a bank account. A promissory note or bill of exchange is enforced by a civil suit.[1]

Does Order XXXVII apply in Bangladesh?

Yes. Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a summary procedure for suits on bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes, under which the defendant needs leave to defend. Rule 1 applies it to the High Court Division and the District Court.[3]

Can a summary suit be filed directly in the High Court Division?

No. In 2021 the Appellate Division held that Order XXXVII confers no jurisdiction, that the place of suing follows sections 15 to 24 of the Code, and that the High Court Division has no original jurisdiction to try a summary suit.[4]

What interest can I claim on a promissory note?

The rate stated in the note. If the note is silent or states no rate, sections 79 and 80 allow 6 per cent a year, notwithstanding any separate agreement on interest.[1]

How long do I have to sue on a promissory note?

Three years. For a note payable on demand, time runs from the date of the note under article 73 of the Limitation Act; for a note payable at a fixed time, from when it falls due under article 69. A signed acknowledgement or part payment before expiry restarts time.[5]

Do I need to protest a dishonoured bill of exchange?

Protest is optional for inland instruments but compulsory for a foreign bill where the law of the place it was drawn requires it. On proof of protest the court presumes dishonour, and protest costs are recoverable.[1]

Is an unstamped promissory note valid evidence?

No. Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899 bars unstamped instruments from evidence, and the proviso allowing admission on payment of a penalty does not apply to bills of exchange or promissory notes.[6]

Can the creditor sue the guarantor without suing the borrower first?

Yes. Section 128 of the Contract Act makes the surety's liability co-extensive with the principal debtor's. In Artha Rin Adalat cases the guarantor must be joined with the borrower, and the decree runs against both jointly and severally.[7] [8]

Must the bank exhaust the borrower's assets before pursuing a guarantor?

Only as to the order in which property is attached in execution. The High Court Division has held that execution runs against all judgment-debtors together and that the sequence in section 6(5) does not prevent civil detention of a guarantor of an unsecured loan.[9] [10]

When is a guarantor discharged?

Among other cases, where the loan terms are varied without the guarantor's consent, the borrower is released or given time without the guarantor's assent, or the creditor loses or gives up security, under sections 133 to 141 of the Contract Act.[7]