Tribunal Rules: Bank Guarantee Invocation Allowed Despite Bankruptcy Moratorium.

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, allowing the invocation of the bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 3 Crores, emphasizing its irrevocable and unconditional nature. It ruled that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not impede such invocation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Respondent could invoke the bank guarantee and that any funds received must lead to a revision of the claim amount in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Resolution Plan's approval remained pending, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
- Invocation of bank guarantee and its impact on the claim of the Financial Creditor under Section 53 of the IBC.
- Right of the Respondent to invoke the bank guarantee despite filing a claim in the CIRP.
- Applicability of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on the invocation of bank guarantee.
- Interpretation of the irrevocable and unconditional nature of bank guarantees.
- Revision of claim amount in case of bank guarantee invocation.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority regarding the invocation of a bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 3 Crores. The Adjudicating Authority held that the Applicant had the right to invoke the bank guarantee, and the Respondent should not obstruct the same. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the independence and irrevocable nature of the bank guarantee, citing relevant legal precedents to support its decision.

The Appellant challenged the order, arguing that the invocation would adversely affect the claim of the Financial Creditor under Section 53 of the IBC and impose additional financial burden. The Respondent contended that the IRP had been informed about the bank guarantee and the need to revise the claim if any amount was recovered through its invocation.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, emphasizing the independence of the bank guarantee as a separate contract between the parties. It referenced legal judgments to establish that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not prevent the invocation of an irrevocable and unconditional bank guarantee. The email communication from the IRP further supported the need to revise the claim amount upon bank guarantee invocation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that if the bank guarantee is invoked and funds are received by the Respondent, the claim amount must be revised accordingly. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the Resolution Plan was pending approval and allowing parties to refer to the previous order for details.

---