https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105929 A specific counter guarantee and later undertaking remained enforceable against the respondent for the amount paid under an unconditional bank guarantee, because they expressly kept the liability alive until the bank-beneficiary suit was finally decided. The broader BIFR settlement did not extinguish that contractual liability, as the securities released under the scheme were distinct from the guarantee-specific arrangements. The respondent's objection that it was not a party to the beneficiary's suit did not displace its indemnity obligation to the bank. A defence under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 also failed because the BIFR proceedings had already concluded after the company became net-worth positive. en-us Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:09:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105929 A specific counter guarantee and later undertaking remained enforceable against the respondent for the amount paid under an unconditional bank guarantee, because they expressly kept the liability alive until the bank-beneficiary suit was finally decided. The broader BIFR settlement did not extinguish that contractual liability, as the securities released under the scheme were distinct from the guarantee-specific arrangements. The respondent's objection that it was not a party to the beneficiary's suit did not displace its indemnity obligation to the bank. A defence under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 also failed because the BIFR proceedings had already concluded after the company became net-worth positive. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105929