1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.669 OF 2006 IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.3 OF 2003 Shri Ram Gopal Bhala ...Appellant v/s SICOM Ltd. And others ...Respondents Mr V.K. Singh i/b M/s Lambay and Co. for Appellant. Mr Kevic Setalwad i/b M/s M/O. Rege and Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 30 th March 2005 passed in miscellaneous petition No.3 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. That petition was filed by the respondent No.1  SICOM Ltd. Under section 31AA of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 invoking the guarantee against the appellant and other guarantors. The learned counsel appearing for appellant first submitted that the State Financial Corporation Ltd. Permitted the security which was given by the Company for securing the loan to impair and therefore the liability of the guarantor to that extent stands reduced. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this objection in detail and given various reasons for not accepting the argument based on the provisions of section 141 of the Contract Act. The first reason given by the learned Single Judge is that in order to rely on the provisions of section 141 of the Contract Act, it was for the appellant to prove that in fact the security has 3 been impaired. There is no evidence produced by the appellant on record to show that there is impairment of the security. When we asked the learned counsel for appellant, he is unable to show us any material on record to show that there is impairment of the security. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that because of negligence on the part of the Finance Corporation in taking steps for sale of the property under section 29, the value of the security is reduced. That argument has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge by referring to various aspects. We do not see any reason to take view different that the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel submits that the appellant has written to the Financial Corporation for withdrawal of his guarantee and he cannot be held liable. In our opinion, the argument is not well founded. The withdrawal of guarantee cannot be unilateral and that withdrawal will not affect in any case the liability already incurred. The learned counsel submits that the claim is barred by limitation, in our opinion, this submission also 4 does not have any substance if the terms of the guarantee are seen. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we find no substance in appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)