https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285533 Invocation or encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee was held not to be barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because such enforcement is not execution, distress or similar proceedings against the property of a sick industrial company. The Court also held that the beneficiary could not resist enforcement by disputing whether the underlying contractual conditions for invocation were satisfied, since bank guarantee autonomy can be displaced only in exceptional cases of fraud or special equities causing irretrievable injustice, which were not shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the challenge to encashment failed. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:05:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285533 Invocation or encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee was held not to be barred by section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, because such enforcement is not execution, distress or similar proceedings against the property of a sick industrial company. The Court also held that the beneficiary could not resist enforcement by disputing whether the underlying contractual conditions for invocation were satisfied, since bank guarantee autonomy can be displaced only in exceptional cases of fraud or special equities causing irretrievable injustice, which were not shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the challenge to encashment failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285533