https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442463 A performance bank guarantee furnished under a transmission agreement was treated as enforceable security, not an asset of the corporate debtor. The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 did not bar invocation because it does not extend to a surety in a contract of guarantee. As the record showed adverse progress of work and the contract made encashment mandatory on that event, the invocation letters were held legally valid and the challenge to encashment failed. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2023 07:50:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442463 A performance bank guarantee furnished under a transmission agreement was treated as enforceable security, not an asset of the corporate debtor. The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 did not bar invocation because it does not extend to a surety in a contract of guarantee. As the record showed adverse progress of work and the contract made encashment mandatory on that event, the invocation letters were held legally valid and the challenge to encashment failed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442463