Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by respondent no. 4 - M/S Lakras Builders to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores in the year 2011 by placing three properties with the bank as collateral security. For some reasons, the appellant wanted to relieve himself from the aforesaid guarantee and thus, made a representation to the respondent/bank initially in the year 2017. However, he did not receive any response, therefore various reminders for revocation of guarantee were sent to the bank, but till date there is no response from the respondent/bank. The appellant also applied through RTI to obtain his documents, but he was denied the documents. Therefore, he preferred a second appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed a writ petition seeking revocation of the guarantee which was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence the present writ appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that despite writing many letters to the bank, no decision was taken by the bank whereas the properties of the wife of respondent no. 4 who was the borrower have been released, which has caused great prejudice to the appellant despite the fact that the loan agreement contains revocation of guarantee on a notice to be served by the bank. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that atleast, the bank ought to have decided the representations. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable and the remedy lies before the Civil Court which is absolutely misplaced. Remedy would lie before the Civil Court only after a decision is taken by the bank either to revoke or to continue with the guarantee. In such a situation, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.