Join for updates
Skip to content
IBC Law Reporter
  • Home
  • About Us
  • IBC News
  • Webinars/Seminars
  • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
  • Resource
  • Contact Us
  • Ebook

An irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee can be invoked even during moratorium period in view of the amended provision under Section 14 (3) (b) of the Code-NCLAT

  • Post Author:admin
  • Post published:September 2, 2023

IDBI BANK LTD. VS Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 543 of 2021

Facts:

1.An I.A. No. 2184 of 2020 filed by the ‘Resolution Professional’ (RP) of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) seeking encashment of the Bank Guarantees issued by the Appellant and Central Bank of India. The Bank Guarantees were issued on behalf of the Corporate Debtor, as required Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 543 of 2021 under the terms of IOCL’s EPCC-2 package of ‘Aishwarya Project’ at its Haldia Refinery in West Bengal.

2.Against the above order the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Issue: whether Bank Guarantees can be invoked/encashed during moratorium under Section 14 of the Code?

Arguments:

For Appellant:

1.Counsel for Appellant contended that the ‘Advance Bank Guarantees’ (ABG) issued by the Appellant Bank have been wrongfully utilised by the IOCL, contrary to the terms of the Bank Guarantee. It is submitted that the Advance Bank Guarantee was provided to secure part of the mobilisation advance of Rs. 107 Crore and against 10% supply payment which has been wrongfully utilised by the Corporate Debtor to secure some other additional advances from IOCL, contrary to the contract and without concurrence from the Appellant bank, which is the issuer of the Advance Bank Guarantee and a party to the Bank Guarantee (BG) Agreement.

2.It is contended that the Corporate Debtor has illegally promised to keep the BG’s issued by the Appellant alive for full value on its own, without any concurrence from the Appellant Bank.

3.Counsel contended that the Advance Bank Guarantees were fraudulently misused by IOCL and PLL in contravention of the Bank Guarantee terms as well as their inter-se contract. Counsel submitted that there is a categorical admission on the part of the IOCL regarding recovery of advances and no denial whatsoever of the factual aspects raised by the Banks regarding ‘fraud’. IOCL has already recovered the entire mobilisation advance and has gone ahead and recovered an amount much higher than that and a backdoor arrangement has been entered into between the Corporate Debtor and IOCL.

4.It was submitted that Advance Bank Guarantees are not the same as Performance Bank Guarantees and therefore, are not covered under the exception to Section 3(31) of the Code and hence, cannot be invoked during moratorium under Section14 of the Code.

For Respondent:

1.Counsel for the first Respondent/IOCL submitted that disputes between IOCL and Corporate Debtor are pending adjudication before the Hon’ble ‘Arbitral Tribunal’ and the same BGs are before the ‘Arbitral Tribunal’, wherein the Corporate Debtor has filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for stay on the encashment of the same BGs. The Application was dismissed by the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal on 21.10.2021 and the BGs were encashed by the Bank on 22.10.2021. No appeal has been preferred by the Corporate Debtor against the dismissal of the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and hence the same has
attained finality.

2.Counsel submitted that no case of fraud whatsoever was made out and that Banks are not allowed to contest the decision of the first Respondent as to any breach and the Appellant Bank is bound to honour encashment of the unconditional BGs and the decision of the first Respondent is binding upon the Bank and the same cannot be contested

Decision:

Rationale:

1.Hon’ble NCLAT relying on Arbitration Award referring to the same BGs and encashment thereof and the observation of the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal that there was no reason to interfere with the encashment of ABGs by IOCL and that there was no injustice or harm caused to it by the encashment, we do not see any substantial ground to delve into the issue of any breach of terms of the contract or any alleged fraud between IOCL and the Corporate Debtor.

2.Bank Guarantees are outside the scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code and Section 3 (31) specifically excludes Performance Bank Guarantees (PBGs).

Order:

Bank-Guarantee_NCLATDownload

Read more articles

Previous Post`Performance of Bank Guarantee’, is `excluded’ from the definition Section of 3 (31) of the I & B Code, 2016. Viewed in that perspective, this `Tribunal’, unhesitatingly holds in a cocksure manner that the `Performance Bank Guarantee’, does not fall under `Moratorium’, in terms of Section 14 of the I & B Code, 2016-NCLAT
Next PostThe power to remove the liquidator lies squarely with the Stakeholders Consultation Committee. We observed that the Suspended Director has no vested right to recommend the removal of the liquidator-NCLT Chandigarh
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
  • Opens in a new window
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Latest Posts

  • Distribution of accumulated cash lying in the bank account of the CD to the stakeholders | Section 53 & Regulation 42 of Liquidation Regulations
    August 11, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    Monitoring Committee or the Resolution Applicant is not empowered to file/pursue PUEF/avoidance transactions proceedings | NCLT Delhi | 01.07.2021
    July 16, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    IBC Law Reporter’s Insights on new changes in CIRP Regulations | 14.07.2021
    July 15, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    Neither the proceedings for recovery of the dues nor the proceedings for recovery of possession of the allotted premises can be allowed to continue or any proposed action in that regard can be sustained during the currency of the CIRP-NCLT Mumbai
    July 13, 2021/
    0 Comments
  • Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    Bank Guarantee (BG) can be invoked even after the declaration of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016- NCLAT
    July 10, 2021/
    0 Comments

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Get in Touch

IBC Law Reporter

Phone: +91 83989-94547
Email: support@ibclawreporter.in

www.ibclawreporter.in

Follow Us

  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab
  • Opens in a new tab

Contact Us





    Quick Links

    Home
    About Us
    Contact Us
    Ebook
    Our Recommendation

    Copyright 2026 - IBC Law Reporter | All Right Reserved
    Close Menu
    • Home
    • About Us
    • IBC News
    • Webinars/Seminars
    • Articles/Blogs/Write Ups
    • Resource
    • Contact Us
    • Ebook