The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts should generally refrain from interfering with the encashment of bank guarantees, except in cases involving fraud or irretrievable injustice, referencing precedents like Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar. However, it took note of key factors: arbitration proceedings were ongoing, the matter had been partly heard by the Commercial Court, Bansal had extended the bank guarantee's validity, and maintaining the status quo caused no prejudice to Jindal Steel. Without deciding on the legal issues, the Court directed the parties to continue arguments before the Commercial Court, which must issue appropriate orders within eight weeks. The bank guarantee is to remain valid until the Section 9 petition is resolved.