<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal dismissed; revocation of IPLOI and invocation of unconditional bank guarantee upheld under Clause 11 and Addendum; Section 7</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92865</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed; revocation of IPLOI and invocation of unconditional bank guarantee upheld under Clause 11 and Addendum; Section 7</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92865</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>