1 to 4 and 6 and the bank.
Ltd. respondent number2 in this appeal.
Subsequent to the revocation of guarantee by the appellant, there were transactions in respect of the loan between the defendant Nos.
1 to 4 and 6.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO 1878 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.21358 of 2006 TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
The suit was filed for recovery of loan by the Bank against the appellant as well as the other defendant Nos.
It is an admitted position that the guarantee issued by the appellant to the Bank was subsequently cancelled by his letter dated 31st of July, 1980 written to the Manager of the Bank and in that view of the matter, the appellant sought to substantiate his case that since his guarantee had stood revoked before the loan was in fact taken by the defendants from the bank, in view of Section 130 of the Act, he was number liable to pay the loan taken by the defendants in respect of which the appellant was a guarantor.
1 to 4 against the said decree.
This appeal arises out of the final judgment and decree dated 11th of May, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No.71 of 1985 whereby the High Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 12th of November, 1984 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissing the suit filed against the appellant who was a guarantor in respect of loans advanced by the Punjab National Bank in short the Bank respondent number1 to M s Rangaa Trades and Exports Pvt.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, this special leave petition has been filed by the guarantor appellant in respect of which leave has already been granted.
