The legal principle established by the Supreme Court emphasizes that courts should exercise restraint in staying the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee, recognizing the importance of honoring such guarantees to maintain trust in commercial transactions. The Court clarified that the primary exceptions to this rule are cases involving clear fraud or situations of irretrievable injustice that would cause irreparable harm to one of the parties involved (!) .

In the context of your argument, the contention that "expiry" is merely a technicality does not meet the high threshold of "irretrievable injustice" as defined by the Court. The Court has consistently held that mere procedural or technical issues, such as the expiration of a guarantee, do not automatically constitute irretrievable injustice unless there are exceptional circumstances demonstrating that enforcement would cause unavoidable and substantial harm that cannot be remedied through other legal avenues (!) .

Therefore, unless the Railways can demonstrate a compelling and exceptional circumstance that would result in irreparable harm—beyond mere technicalities—the courts are unlikely to find that the invocation of the bank guarantee should be stayed on the ground of irretrievable injustice. The high threshold set by the Court underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of unconditional guarantees and discourages courts from intervening unless clear and exceptional circumstances are established.