https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408452 The Tribunal held that IOCL was entitled to invoke and encash the bank guarantees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The guarantees were deemed independent contracts between the banks and IOCL, not subject to the moratorium under the IBC, 2016. The judgment emphasized that completion of work was a prerequisite for encashment, and the Corporate Debtor's obligations remained unaffected by additional financial support. The RP's application to restrain encashment was dismissed, as the guarantees were considered valid for IOCL to enforce without any fraud involved, allowing IOCL to proceed with encashment. en-us Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2021 08:48:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408452 The Tribunal held that IOCL was entitled to invoke and encash the bank guarantees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The guarantees were deemed independent contracts between the banks and IOCL, not subject to the moratorium under the IBC, 2016. The judgment emphasized that completion of work was a prerequisite for encashment, and the Corporate Debtor's obligations remained unaffected by additional financial support. The RP's application to restrain encashment was dismissed, as the guarantees were considered valid for IOCL to enforce without any fraud involved, allowing IOCL to proceed with encashment. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408452