DINESH TRILOKCHAND CHAUDHARY Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 3 Dinesh Trilokchand Choudhary being aggrieved by the order dated 5th May, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 9 in Original Application No. 282 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant for striking out his name from the proceedings on the ground that he was relieved as a guarantor in the year 1990 and therefore, he was absolved from the liability as a guarantor.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.R. Pandey for the appellant and Mr. Faizal Sayyad for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that initially the defendant No. 3/the present appellant was in duel capacity i.e. director and guarantor. As a guarantor he had executed the guarantee deed in favour of the applicant Bank and accepted the liability. In the application on which the impugned order has been passed, a specific defence was taken by the defendant No. 3 that, he had been absolved from the liability as there was variance in the terms of the contract and secondly he had been relieved by the Bank when fresh guarantors were substituted by the new management of the defendant No. 1 company.