The stand of the petitioner bank to the effect that the guarantee deed executed by respondent Nos.
the exact amount, which was outstanding on that day.
Thus, it does number lie in the mouth of the petitioner bank to say that respondent No.2 is number absolved of his liability even from the documents placed on record.
The High Court at page 7 of the impugned judgment has held as follows From the above pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that the bank has admitted that respondent No.2 had resigned from the Board of Director of respondent No.3 Company and another Director has executed a fresh guarantee substituting him.
In addition personal guarantees have also been executed by respondent Nos.
7730 of 2007.
4 and 5, which shows that they had executed this guarantee deed for a sum of Rs.6,70,51,800.85 Ps.,
4 and 5 on 13.5.2003 was additional guarantee, is falsified from fresh guarantee deed, executed by respondent Nos.
4 and 5.
Appeal No.134 of 2006 whereby the respondent No.2 herein had been ordered to be deleted as a defendant guarantor in the Original Application No.343/2004, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellant bank is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2008 of the High Court in C.W.P. No.
The appellant had challenged the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Misc.
