2.1.The Applicant Bank has further submitted, vide submission dated 26.06.2023, that the contention of the Respondent Resolution Professional is not correct in so far as he pleads that upon payment of the money by the Applicant accounts have been settled. The Applicant submitted that the money given by the applicant under a bona fide belief in an ongoing CIRP process cannot be construed as settlement of account. Further the continuous demands raised by the RP for contribution to CIRP cost shows that the accounts have not been settled. The Applicant has also cited the decision of this bench in the case of Dhiren Shantial Shah Vs. Indian Bank (IA-148/2021 in CP(IB)4164/MB/IV/2019) to contend that margin money is substratum of a trust created to pay to the beneficiary to whom the bank guarantee is given and are not the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Applicant has also relied upon decision of Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. Arvind Kumar {CA 558 of 2020} , wherein it was also held that the “margin money” is the contribution on the part of the borrower who seeks “Bank Guarantee”. The said margin money remains with the Bank, if the Bank Guarantee is alive. If the Bank guarantee expires without being invoked, then the margin money reverse back to the borrower, and in case, the bank guarantee is invoked by the beneficiary, the margin money goes towards payment of bank guarantee to the beneficiary, and nothing remains with the financial institutions, which can be reversed to the corporate debtor.
