Bank guarantee cash margin dispute required fresh reconsideration, with recovery held in abeyance pending review.

The Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the petitioner's modification request because the earlier stay order had not adequately addressed the bank's insistence on a cash margin for issuing a bank guarantee. The practical inability to furnish cash deposit was treated as a material factor requiring fresh examination. Pending that reconsideration, coercive recovery on the basis of the demand notice was not warranted, and recovery proceedings were to remain in abeyance until the Tribunal completed its review.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was required to reconsider the petitioner's application for modification of its earlier stay order in view of the bank's insistence on cash margin for issuing a bank guarantee, and whether coercive recovery steps could be taken meanwhile.

Analysis: The bank's stand was that a bank guarantee would not be issued unless the petitioner furnished cash margin, while the petitioner maintained that it was unable to make any cash deposit. The earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal had proceeded without giving due weight to this crucial practical difficulty. In these circumstances, the appropriate course was for the Tribunal to re-examine the modification request with the bank's insistence on cash margin in view. Since the matter was pending reconsideration, recovery action based on the demand notice was not warranted in the meantime.

Conclusion: The application was to be reconsidered by the Appellate Tribunal, and recovery proceedings were directed to remain in abeyance until that reconsideration was completed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in a limited protective relief for the petitioner, with the matter sent back for fresh consideration and interim restraint on recovery.

---