Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent bank could refuse to release the corporate debtor's fixed deposit on the ground that a claim under the bank guarantee was not invoked within the stipulated period and Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 protected the bank's stand.
Analysis: The fixed deposit had been pledged as security for a bank guarantee issued by the respondent bank in favour of a third party. The guarantee itself was valid only up to the specified date, and the relevant clause required any written claim to be made within that period, failing which the bank stood discharged from liability. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as amended, permits bank guarantee stipulations that extinguish rights or discharge liability after a specified period, provided the statutory conditions are met. The legal distinction between lodging a claim within time and enforcing rights after a claim is lodged was also recognised. Since no claim was made within the stipulated period, the bank could not rely on the guarantee clause to retain the fixed deposit.
Conclusion: The objection of the respondent bank was unsustainable, and it was directed to release the fixed deposit belonging to the corporate debtor.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a bank guarantee stipulates a valid time-bound period for invocation and no claim is lodged within that period, the guarantor bank cannot retain the secured funds by invoking the guarantee after expiry of the stipulated time.