A guarantor remains liable unless specific conditions for discharge are met, including the replacement of the guarantee or redemption of the mortgage.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the petition, setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 497 of 2003 dated 30.06.2009 restoring the award passed by the Board of Nominees, discharging the original petitionerdeceased respondent no. 1 from its liability towards the outstanding loan as a guarantor. The order dated 06.01.2003 passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in Lavad Case No. 457 of 2001 has been restored by the learned Single Judge, accordingly.

2. Brief facts relevant to decide the controversy at hands are that the appellant herein, viz. the Ahmedabad Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. filed a Lavad Case No. 457 of 2001 against the original petitioner and respondents no. 2 to 6 before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad on the ground that the respondent no. 2, a proprietory firm of the respondent no. 3 had failed to make the payment of the outstanding dues of the loan advanced by the Bank, viz. the appellant herein. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that the respondents no. 3 to 6 had stood as guarantors in respect of the said loan. It seems that by the judgment and award dated 06.01.2003, the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad passed a decree in favour of the appellant Bank to the tune of Rs.90,95,448/- with interest at the rate of 23% p.a. and cost of Rs.3,000/-. However, the Board of Nominees came to the conclusion that the original defendant no. 5 and the original defendant no. 6 viz. the original petitioner before the Writ court were discharged from their liability by the bank.

3. Being aggrieved against the order of discharge of the said petitioner and defendant no. 5, Appeal No. 497 of 2003 was filed by the Bank, i.e. the appellant herein before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 and modified the judgment and award of the Board of Nominees holding that the Writ petitioner/original defendant nos. 5 and 6 shall be jointly liable with defendants no. 2 to 4 in the original proceeding for payment of outstanding loan as per the decree dated 06.01.2003. The original petitioner has also been injuncted restraining her from dealing with the mortgaged property till the recovery of the awarded amount. However, on a review application filed by the petitioner being Review Application No. 52 of 2009, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2011 reversed the judgment and order dated 30.06.2009, allowing the appeal affirming the judgment and award dated 06.01.2003 passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in discharging the original petitioner/original defendant no. 6 from the loan liability.

4. The appellant Bank filed Special Civil Application No. 14147 of 2011 challenging the order passed in the review application which was set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2011. Resultantly, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29.07.2011 in review application has been quashed affirming the order in appeal dated 30.06.2009, setting aside the award of the Board of Nominees to the extent of liability of the original petitioner/guarantor defendant no. 6 towards outstanding loan. Thereafter, the original petitioner filed the Writ petition, out of which the instant appeal has arisen challenging the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in Appeal No. 497 of 2003. During the pendency of the Writ petition, on the demise of the original petitioner, her heirs have been brought on record.

5. The learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ petition, has referred to a Resolution No. 3 passed by the appellant Bank in the meeting of the Board of Directors to discharge the guarantee of the original petitioner (Late Chandrikaben Dhirajlal Parikh) and release the mortgage over her property situated at C/122 Sohamnagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the Tribunal has committed