# In the matter of Indian Overseas Bank
Vs. Arvind Kumar CA(AT)(Ins)No. 558 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-09-28. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00101. This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 28 Sept 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00101
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/indian-overseas-bank-vs-arvind-kumar-ca-9a7963e7

## Summary

### Background

This case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which directed the Appellant Bank (Indian Overseas Bank) to release the margin money of Rs. 51,27,591/- belonging to the Corporate Debtor (M/s Richa Industries Limited). The margin money was deposited by the Corporate Debtor to secure a Bank Guarantee in favor of M/s Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited. The Bank Guarantee was invoked during the moratorium period. The Resolution Professional demanded the margin money, but the Appellant Bank had already adjusted it towards the payment of the invoked Bank Guarantee.

## Facts

Indian Overseas Bank (Appellant) is a financial creditor of Richa Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Corporate Debtor availed loan facilities, including an irrevocable Bank Guarantee, and deposited Rs. 40,50,000 as margin money in the form of FDR to secure the Bank Guarantee. Tata Blue Steel Limited, an operational creditor, initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application on December 17, 2018, and declared a moratorium. The IRP was appointed on December 21, 2018. The Bank Guarantee, issued in favor of Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Limited, was invoked, and payment of Rs. 4,01,94,954 was made. The margin money, along with accrued interest, totaled Rs. 51,27,591. During CIRP, the Resolution Professional

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in directing the Appellant Bank to release the …

**Ratio:** The Appellate Tribunal held that the direction to release the margin money was incorrect

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Bank Guarantee was invoked before any order of moratorium was

…

**Interpretation:** This implies that the Adjudicating Authority's order was based on a

…

**Application:** Since the Bank Guarantee was invoked before the moratorium, the bank's action

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Jarat Kuma…; Mr Balvinde…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Indian Overseas…
- **Respondents:** Richa Industries…; Arvind…

## Timeline

- **2018-12-17 — CIRP Init…**: Application admitted by the Adjudicating…
- **2018-12-21 — IRP Appoi…**: Interim Resolution…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/indian-overseas-bank-vs-arvind-kumar-ca-9a7963e7