https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462407 Delhi HC held that respondent bank's mandatory 12-month claim period for bank guarantees was based on erroneous interpretation of Section 28 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court clarified that Section 28 deals with creditor's right to enforce rights before courts/tribunals, not the claim period for lodging claims with banks. Exception 3 to Section 28 concerns curtailment of periods for approaching courts, not claim periods with guarantors. The impugned communications mandating minimum 12-month claim periods were declared illegal and void. Petition disposed of favorably. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462407 Delhi HC held that respondent bank's mandatory 12-month claim period for bank guarantees was based on erroneous interpretation of Section 28 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court clarified that Section 28 deals with creditor's right to enforce rights before courts/tribunals, not the claim period for lodging claims with banks. Exception 3 to Section 28 concerns curtailment of periods for approaching courts, not claim periods with guarantors. The impugned communications mandating minimum 12-month claim periods were declared illegal and void. Petition disposed of favorably. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462407