M. S. ANIRUDHAN vs THE THOMCO'S BANK LTD.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, who stood as a surety for a bank guarantee, was not discharged from liability despite alterations made to the guarantee document by the principal debtor, S. The Court reasoned that S acted as the agent of the appellant when making the alterations, and thus the appellant could not claim discharge due to material alteration under the contract of guarantee. The dissenting opinion argued that the altered document did not reflect the original intent of the parties, and therefore, the suit against the appellant should fail.