Surety bond qualifies as security bond when offered assets are already encumbered and valid security is lacking.

The expression "security bond" includes a surety bond, and a tribunal cannot insist on cash deposit or a bank guarantee where the offered assets were already charged to a bank and were not valid security. The Court held that, once the tribunal had found the proposed security insufficient, it should not have rejected the surety bond for compliance with its earlier direction. The surety bond furnished by the petitioner was directed to be accepted as security under the earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a surety bond can be treated as a security bond for compliance with the Court's earlier direction and whether the Tribunal was justified in insisting on cash deposit and bank guarantee instead.

Analysis: The Court clarified that the expression "security bond" includes a surety bond. It noted that once the Tribunal had itself found that the assets offered as security were already charged to the State Bank of India and could not constitute valid and sufficient security, it ought not to have sought further clarification or refused acceptance of the surety bond.

Conclusion: The surety bond furnished by the petitioner was directed to be accepted as security in compliance with the earlier order.

---