Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On the contrary the learned advocate for the first respondent-bank would contend that the guarantee executed by the appellant is a continuing guarantee and the revocation of the said guarantee was unilateral and the same was not accepted by the respondent-bank. Even otherwise, the revocation of the continuing guarantee would discharge the appellant only in respect of the future transactions and that will not take away the liability of the appellant in respect of past transaction.

9. Admittedly, the amount of SODH was given on December 29, 1981, on which date the appellant, was the director of the first defendant-company and, therefore, he cannot disown his liability and the finding of the DRT that the revocation of the appellant would not absolve him from his liability is to be upheld, as the guarantee given by this defendant is a continuing guarantee and the revocation, if any, of such guarantee would hold good only in respect of future transaction as stated in Section 130 of the Contract Act, and therefore, this point is answered against the appellant.