Mohamed Uvais Mohamed Rushdi vs Seylan Bank Limited – SC/CHC/15/2012-2025

The court addressed the issue of whether the Plaintiff Bank could maintain its action against the 2nd Defendant after referring its claim to the Liquidator in relation to the winding-up application, and whether the Plaintiff Bank could enforce a Guarantee Bond (P9) as a continuing security for both past and future debts. It was held that the Bank was entitled to proceed against the 2nd Defendant despite the winding-up proceedings and that the Guarantee Bond, being a continuing security, was enforceable in regards to subsequent advances. The legal reasoning reaffirmed the principle that a continuing guarantee remains operative for future obligations unless expressly discharged, referencing distinctions from authorities such as the Rumeco case and underlying legal doctrines on demand guarant