1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3674 OF 2008 Canara Bank .. Petitioner Vs. Sundeo Home Appliances Company & Pace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And others. .. Respondents .. Respondents None for the Petitioner Ms. Vandana D. Jaisingh for Respondent No.2 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2009 ORAL ORDER ( Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. This petition is filed by the Petitioner- Bank challenging the order dated 27th March, 2007, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Appeal No. 250 of 2004, setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 14.1.2004 about the recovery against the respondents in respect of liability of the debts to the tune of Rs.61,727.68/- with interest @ 11.5% p. a. 2. The Appeal before the DRAT was filed by the Respondent No.2-(Original Defendant No.2), who stood guarantor for Respondent No.1- the principal borrower. The Respondent no.1 has availed the loan towards 2 working capital and to procure fixed assets. The Respondent No.2 has executed a Deed of Guarantee for repsondent no.1 in favour of the Petitioner Bank for the sum of Rs.14 lakhs. However, the respondent No.1 failed to repay the amount. So, the Petitioner-Bank issued a demand notice and filed a Civil Suit for recovery of the debts. Subsequently, that suit was transferred to the DRT, Pune which was decreed by the DRT by passing judgement and order in favour of the petitioner- bank for recovery of the said dues. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the DRT, Appeal No. 250/2004 was preferred by the Respondent No.2 challenging the impugned order of DRT dated 14.11.2004. The DRAT allowed the said appeal. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the repsondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 cannot be prosecuted for the recovery of the subject debt as the respondent no.2 has already revoked the guarantee in the year 1990. The learned counsel drew our attention to the letter of guarantee dated 29th April, 1988 executed by Respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner bank. The learned counsel highlighted the relevant clause in respect of revocation of guarantee incorporated in the said letter of guarantee. It is stated that the guarantee period will continue only up to expiry of 6 months after the notice in writing of revocation of the guarantee is given. Our attention was further drawn to the letter written by respondent no.2 to the petitioner Bank by which he has revoked the 3 guarantee. The learned counsel has further submitted that the bank has received and acknowledged the said letter of revocation and thereafter by letter dated 13th March, 2004, the bank has substituted the guarantor. The learned counsel has further submitted that the guarantee was revoked in the year 1990 and the suit was filed in 1998 and so it was beyond he limitation. 4. After taking into consideration these two documents i.e. letter of guarantee, especially the clause of revocation mentioned therein and the letter of revocation dated 28th December, 1990, the DRAT has rightly held that the appellant i.e. Respondent no.2 was not liable under his guarantee because of the substitution of the contract between the Bank and the Company and it was also rightly held that the liability, if any, was time barred as the bank has not proceeded against the appellant within 3 years from 1.7.1991 i.e. after the service of notice. The DRAT has rightly allowed the appeal with costs. We have considered these documents, so also the findings given by the DRAT and we are of the view that the DRAT has not committed any error or illegality in allowing the appeal and as such, there is no merit in the petition. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.)