https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407127 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee (BG). It found that the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) provided did not fall under the moratorium of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and that respondent No. 1's invocation of the BG was unjustified as the project was completed and operational, with no breach by the applicant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider case-specific facts and ordered respondent No. 1 to crystallize pending works in financial terms and file a claim with the Resolution Professional to preserve the Corporate Debtor's assets. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 May 2021 09:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407127 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, restraining respondent No. 1 from invoking the Bank Guarantee (BG). It found that the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) provided did not fall under the moratorium of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and that respondent No. 1's invocation of the BG was unjustified as the project was completed and operational, with no breach by the applicant. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider case-specific facts and ordered respondent No. 1 to crystallize pending works in financial terms and file a claim with the Resolution Professional to preserve the Corporate Debtor's assets. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407127