Personal Guarantees in Franchise Agreements in India: When Can Directors and Promoters Be Personally Liable?

Quick answer: A personal guarantee in a franchise agreement in India can make an individual, usually the promoter or director behind a corporate franchisee, personally liable for specified obligations of the company. Directorship, promotership or shareholding does not by itself ordinarily make a person liable for the company's contractual debts, but personal exposure can arise through a guarantee, indemnity, direct contractual covenant, or other circumstances recognised by law. Under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract provides otherwise. The practical question is therefore not simply whether to take a guarantee, but which risks the individual should personally guarantee and which should sit in separate covenants.

The scenario that makes this question real

Picture a common set-up. An Indian franchisor grants a franchise to XYZ Private Limited. The company signs the franchise agreement, pays the fees, runs the outlet. Behind XYZ sits one promoter who owns most of the shares, calls the shots, and is, for all practical purposes, the business.

The company enjoys limited liability. That is the whole point of incorporating. So the franchisor pauses and asks the obvious commercial question: if XYZ stops paying royalties, quietly shifts its assets to a sister entity, or slides into insolvency, who does the franchisor actually recover from? The company may by then be an empty shell.

This is where the promoter's personal guarantee enters the picture. And this is where a lot of Indian franchise agreements borrow drafting wholesale from UK or US templates without checking whether it survives contact with Indian law. It does not always survive, particularly on post-termination restrictions. So let us walk through how a personal guarantee in a franchise agreement in India really works, and where the drafting deserves more care than it usually gets.

Why a franchisor asks for a personal guarantee at all

The rationale is straightforward and, frankly, reasonable. A franchisor is handing over its brand, systems, and goodwill to a company whose net worth it cannot control. If the individual who runs that company has nothing personally at stake, the incentive to honour the deal weakens the moment things go wrong.

A guarantee does two things. It gives the franchisor a second pocket to reach into if the company defaults. And it aligns the promoter's mind with the company's performance, because now the promoter's own assets are on the line.

That said, not every franchise needs one, and a franchisor who demands a sweeping personal guarantee in every deal may simply lose good franchisees to competitors who ask for less. A well-capitalised franchisee company, or a large corporate group taking a master franchise, may reasonably resist. So treat the guarantee as a risk tool to be calibrated, not a box to tick.

A company's debts are not automatically its promoter's debts

Here is the foundation that a surprising number of business owners get wrong. When you incorporate a company, Section 9 of the Companies Act, 2013gives it a separate legal personality. It becomes a body corporate that can own property, contract, and sue or be sued in its own name. The company is a distinct person in the eyes of the law, separate from the humans who own and run it.

The practical consequence is that a director or shareholder is not, merely by holding that position, personally liable for the company's contractual debts. This is the principle traced back to Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. and applied consistently in company law. If XYZ Private Limited owes royalties, the debt is ordinarily XYZ's, not the promoter's.

So what changes the position? Personal exposure can arise where the individual has separately undertaken an obligation, such as through a properly executed personal guarantee, indemnity, or direct personal covenant, or in another circumstance recognised by law. The source of the individual's contractual exposure is the undertaking or legal basis that makes the individual personally liable, not merely the person's designation as director, promoter or shareholder.

What a guarantee actually means under the Indian Contract Act

TheIndian Contract Act, 1872defines a contract of guarantee in Section 126 as a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of that person's default. Three parties are involved: the person who gives the guarantee (the surety), the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given (the principal debtor), and the person to whom the guarantee is given (the creditor). In a franchise, read those roles as promoter, company, and franchisor.

Section 127 confirms that anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor is sufficient consideration for the guarantee. Practically, the grant of the franchise to the company is usually the consideration that supports the promoter's guarantee, which is why the guarantee should be part of, or clearly tied to, the same transaction.

The provision that does the heavy lifting is Section 128. It says the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless the contract provides otherwise. "Co-extensive" means the guarantor's liability runs to the same extent as the company's. If the company owes a crore in unpaid royalties, the guarantor is on the hook for a crore, no more and no less, subject to whatever limits the contract itself imposes. And when the guarantor pays, Section 140 subrogates the guarantor to the creditor's rights, so the promoter can in principle recover from the company. Cold comfort if the company is insolvent, but the right exists.

Keep those four words in mind: "unless the contract provides otherwise." They are the doorway to a targeted, capped guarantee rather than an open-ended one.

Can the franchisor come straight after the promoter?

This is the point most guarantors misunderstand, and it matters commercially. The instinct is to assume the franchisor must first sue the company, exhaust every remedy against it, and only then knock on the guarantor's door. Indian law generally says the opposite.

In Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Damodar Prasad, the trial court had directed that the creditor could enforce its dues against the surety only after exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. The Supreme Court set that direction aside. Absent some special equity, a surety has no right to restrain the creditor from proceeding against him until the creditor has exhausted its remedies against the principal. The very purpose of a guarantee, the Court observed, is defeated if the creditor is forced to wait.

This was reinforced in State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered, where the Court held that a decree-holder is free to choose whom to execute against first, and the choice lies entirely with the creditor. It went further in Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, holding that the liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor is co-extensive but not in the alternative. Both are liable at the same time. The guarantor cannot insist that the creditor chase the company first.

For a promoter about to sign, the lesson is blunt. Do not assume the guarantee is a distant, last-resort liability. Once the company defaults, the franchisor may well come directly to you.

Guarantee, indemnity, or the promoter's own promise? Three different things

People use "guarantee" and "indemnity" as if they were interchangeable. They are not, and the difference has real bite.

A contract of indemnity under Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act is an undertaking to save another from loss. A guarantee under Section 126, as we saw, is a promise to answer for a third person's default. The distinction is important, but an indemnity should not be treated as invariably or entirely independent in every situation: the timing and extent of the indemnifier's liability ultimately depend on the wording of the indemnity and the loss it covers.

Now layer in a fourth concept that is easy to miss. When the individual makes a promise about his own conduct, say a promise to keep the franchisor's manuals confidential, that is neither a guarantee nor an indemnity. It is the individual's own direct contractual obligation. He is not answering for the company's default. He is answering for himself.

So in a well-thought-out franchise structure there are potentially four distinct layers:

•      the franchisee company's primary contractual liability under the franchise agreement;

•      the promoter's guarantee of some of those company obligations;

•      the promoter's indemnity for defined losses; and

•      the promoter's own direct covenants for things only a human can meaningfully promise, like confidentiality and non-use of proprietary material.

The takeaway on drafting: calling a clause an "indemnity" does not make it one. Courts look at substance, not the label. A poorly worded indemnity may function as a guarantee, or fail to do what the drafter intended. Read the operative words, not the heading.

How wide should the guarantee be? Two models

Broadly, franchisors choose between two designs.

The broad model has the promoter guarantee performance of every obligation of the franchisee, operational, financial, and compliance-related. It is the franchisor's dream on paper. Miss a training standard, breach a supply term, fail an audit, and the promoter is personally exposed.

The targeted model has the promoter guarantee only defined monetary liabilities: franchise fees, royalties, unpaid invoices, agreed damages, and similar amounts due.

Which is better? Neither is universally correct, which is exactly why this should be negotiated rather than copied. The broad model gives maximum protection but invites hard resistance from any promoter advised properly, and it can expose the individual to liability for operational failures that are genuinely the company's to manage. The targeted model is easier to negotiate, cleaner to enforce, and easier to value, because money obligations are quantifiable in a way that "performance of all obligations" is not. Its trade-off is that some non-monetary risks fall outside the guarantee, which is why those risks are better handled as the promoter's direct covenants rather than dropped altogether.

A cleaner way to structure the risk

Rather than throwing everything into one sprawling guarantee, consider separating the concepts by who is really responsible for what.

The corporate franchisee carries the job of operating the franchise and performing the agreement. That is the company's role, and it should stay there.

The individual as guarantor personally guarantees defined financial and payment obligations, ideally with a stated monetary cap and a clear duration. This is where Section 128's "unless the contract provides otherwise" earns its keep, letting you limit an otherwise co-extensive liability.

The individual's own direct covenants cover what only a person can sensibly promise: confidentiality, protection of trade secrets, protection of intellectual property, return and non-use of proprietary material on exit, and appropriately drawn non-solicitation obligations.

Why bother splitting it up? Because clarity protects both sides. The promoter knows the precise size and shape of his personal exposure. The franchisor gets enforceable, well-targeted protection instead of a broad clause that a court may read down. And negotiations move faster when each party can see what it is actually agreeing to. A single monster clause tends to produce disputes about scope; separated obligations tend to produce settlements. This is a drafting philosophy, not a template, and the exact wording should be built for the specific deal with legal input.

Post-termination restrictions: where Indian law parts ways with the West

If you take one thing from this article, take this. Indian law treats restraints of trade very differently from England or the United States, and a clause that would be enforceable abroad may be void here.

Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act says that every agreement by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business is, to that extent, void. There is a narrow exception for the sale of goodwill, and separate carve-outs under partnership law, but the general rule is stark. Crucially, unlike English law, the question of whether a restraint is "reasonable" is largely beside the point. The Supreme Court made this explicit in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co., itself a franchise and bottling dispute, where it distinguished the Indian position from the English rule under which reasonable restraints can be upheld.

That same case draws an important distinction. A negative covenant confined to the subsistence of the agreement may stand on a different footing under Section 27, particularly where it is ancillary to the commercial arrangement. Thus, a clause restricting the franchisee from running a competing brand while the franchise is live may be treated differently from a restraint that continues after termination.

Post-termination restrictions face a significantly greater enforceability problem. In Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai, and again in Percept D'Mark (India) (P) Ltd. v. Zaheer Khan, the Supreme Court held that a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void under Section 27. In Percept D'Mark, the Court was clear that a restriction operating after the contract has ended is an unlawful fetter on a person's freedom to trade.

So it is worth separating the different animals people lump together as "post-term restrictions":

•      Non-compete after termination: high risk of being void under Section 27.

•      Confidentiality and trade-secret protection: generally treated differently, because protecting secret information is not the same as restraining a person's freedom to trade. These can often survive termination, though courts still look at how the clause is framed.

•      Intellectual property restrictions: protection of the franchisor's marks and proprietary material rests on IP law and generally continues.

•      Non-solicitation: a grey zone. Some courts have been willing to enforce narrowly drawn non-solicitation clauses, but the position is far from settled, so draft conservatively.

•      Restraints during the relationship: as Gujarat Bottling confirms, these generally hold.

Do not let anyone tell you that describing a post-termination non-compete as "reasonable" makes it enforceable in India. On the current authorities, that framing does not save it. This is precisely the point where imported drafting quietly fails.

What if the franchisee company goes insolvent?

A guarantee earns its value most when the company cannot pay, which is often exactly when the company is heading into insolvency. It helps to keep two things separate: contractual enforcement of the guarantee, and the insolvency process itself.

The position for franchisors is useful, but it needs an important qualification. A corporate insolvency does not automatically shield the personal guarantor. InState Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, the Supreme Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 of theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016applicable to the corporate debtor does not, merely by itself, protect the personal guarantor. This does not mean that proceedings against a personal guarantor can never be affected by a separate insolvency process or moratorium applicable to the guarantor personally. InLalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, the Court upheld the framework bringing personal guarantors of corporate debtors within the IBC and held that approval of a resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not, by itself, discharge the guarantor's liability.

The practical point for a promoter is sobering. If you have guaranteed the company's payment obligations and the company collapses, the collapse is not your exit. The guarantee is what the franchisor is counting on precisely in that moment.

Before you sign: a promoter's checklist

If you are the individual being asked to guarantee, slow down and read for these:

•      Scope. Does the guarantee cover only defined money obligations, or every obligation of the company? Push for the former.

•      A monetary cap. Is there a ceiling on your liability, or is it open-ended? A cap is your single most valuable protection.

•      Duration. How long does the guarantee last, and does it end when the franchise ends?

•      Continuing guarantee language. Section 129 recognises a continuing guarantee that extends to a series of transactions. If the clause is a continuing guarantee, your exposure may keep growing with each new liability the company incurs. Section 130 allows revocation of a continuing guarantee for future transactions by notice, so understand your exit.

•      Variations to the main agreement. Under Section 133, a variance made without the surety's consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and creditor can discharge the surety as to later transactions. Franchise agreements are often amended, renewed, expanded or otherwise varied, and guarantee drafting may seek advance consent to specified future variations. The effect of that drafting should be assessed carefully rather than assuming that every future amendment is automatically covered by the original guarantee.

•      Release and discharge. Sections 134, 135 and 139 set out situations where a surety is discharged, for example where the creditor's own act or omission impairs the surety's eventual remedy against the principal debtor. Know what preserves and what forfeits these rights.

•      Survival on transfer or sale. Does the guarantee follow the franchise if it is assigned or the business is sold, and can you be released on an approved transfer?

Before you send it out: a franchisor's checklist

If you are drafting the guarantee, the discipline is different:

•      Correct parties. Is the individual signing in a personal capacity, clearly distinct from signing for the company?

•      Proper execution and stamping. Is the individual signing in the correct personal capacity, clearly distinct from signing for the company? The applicable stamp-duty and execution requirements for the relevant State should also be checked, so that formalities do not become an avoidable enforceability issue later.

•      Consideration. Is the guarantee tied to the grant of the franchise, satisfying Section 127?

•      Scope and consistency. Do the guarantee's terms match the obligations in the main franchise agreement, with no gaps or contradictions?

•      Amendments and renewals. Have you addressed what happens to the guarantee when the agreement is varied or renewed, so a later change does not inadvertently discharge the surety?

•      Financial obligations defined. Are the guaranteed money obligations described precisely enough to enforce?

•      Separate personal covenants. Are confidentiality, IP protection, and non-solicitation drafted as the individual's own direct covenants rather than folded into the guarantee, and are the post-termination pieces drawn with Section 27 firmly in mind?

When professional advice becomes necessary

General principles get you oriented, but franchise guarantees turn on their exact wording and on the commercial balance of a specific deal. It is worth getting a lawyer involved when the guarantee is uncapped or open-ended, when the franchise involves significant upfront investment, when there is a master or multi-unit structure, when a business is being transferred with an existing guarantee attached, or when the company is already showing signs of financial stress. Reviewing the wording before signature is far cheaper than litigating its meaning afterwards.

The real question

It is tempting to argue about whether personal guarantees are good or bad. That framing misses the point. A guarantee is neither virtuous nor sinister. It is a mechanism, and like any mechanism it can be well built or badly built.

The better question, for franchisor and promoter alike, is not simply whether a franchise agreement should contain a personal guarantee. It is precisely which risks the individual should personally guarantee, usually the defined financial ones, and which protections should instead operate as separate contractual covenants, such as confidentiality, IP protection, and carefully limited non-solicitation. Get that division right, and the agreement becomes clearer, fairer, and easier to enforce. Get it wrong, and you have either a promoter carrying risks he never should have, or a franchisor holding a clause a court will not back.



Frequently asked questions

Is a promoter automatically liable for a franchisee company's debts in India?

No. Because of the company's separate legal personality under Section 9 of theCompanies Act, 2013, a promoter or director is not personally liable for the company's contractual debts merely by holding that position. Personal exposure can arise from a guarantee, indemnity, direct covenant, or another legal basis recognised by law.

Can a franchisor sue the guarantor without first suing the company?

Generally yes. Following Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad and Industrial Investment Bank of India v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, the guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the company's and not in the alternative, so the franchisor can usually proceed against the guarantor directly on default.

Is a post-termination non-compete on a franchisee enforceable in India?

Usually not. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act renders restraints of trade void, and the Supreme Court in Percept D'Mark v. Zaheer Khan held that restrictions extending beyond the term of a contract are void. Calling the restraint "reasonable" does not, on the authorities discussed here, by itself make it enforceable.

What is the difference between a guarantee and an indemnity here?

A guarantee under Section 126 is a promise to answer for the company's default. An indemnity under Section 124 is an undertaking to protect another against specified loss. The timing and extent of liability under an indemnity depend on its wording and the loss covered; courts look at the substance of the clause, not simply its label.

Does the franchisee company's insolvency release the guarantor?

No, not automatically. In State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, the Supreme Court held that the Section 14 IBC moratorium applicable to the corporate debtor does not, merely by itself, extend to the personal guarantor, while Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India confirmed that approval of a resolution plan for the corporate debtor does not, by itself, discharge the guarantor's liability.

Should a personal guarantee in a franchise agreement be capped?

Not necessarily. Indian law does not inherently require every guarantee to have a monetary cap. Section 128 permits the contract to provide for the surety's liability differently from full co-extensive liability. Commercially, the parties can negotiate a monetary cap, defined guaranteed obligations, a duration, exclusions and specific release events, depending on the risk allocation they agree.

Related articles:

1. Term Sheets & Shareholders’ Agreements 2025: Legal Clauses Indian Founders Often Overlook

2. Outsourcing Software Development Abroad? Legal Clauses Every Business Must Know (2025 Global Guide)

3. Starting a Company With Co-Founders? The Essential Clauses Every Founder Must Include (2025 Global Guide)

About Author

Gaurav Saxena is the Founding Partner of SolvLegal Law Offices LLP, with over 14 years of experience advising startups, technology companies, and global businesses on commercial, technology, intellectual property, and regulatory matters. He focuses on delivering practical, business-oriented legal solutions for companies operating in fast-evolving digital and cross-border environments.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional counsel before acting on any information herein. SolvLegal and the author disclaim any liability arising from reliance on this content.