Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 69 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. vs Richardson And Cruddas (1972) Ltd. And ... on 2 September, 1996

In that case, the Supreme Court repelled the contention that the law laid down in U. P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P.) Ltd. [19989] 65 Comp Cas 283 was that except in case of fraud and that too when it creates irretrievable injustice, the courts should not interfere by restraining the beneficiary from encashing the bank guarantee. On a detailed consideration of the above decision, it was observed by Nanavati J. (page 356) :
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dai-Ichi Karkaria Private Ltd., Bombay vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission Bombay And ... on 29 January, 1991

Mr. Sanghavi has submitted that the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Texmaco Ltd.'s case , is overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd., (supra). It is not possible to agree with this submission. In paragraph 22 of the written submissions it is contended on behalf of the 1st defendant that the real dispute was in respect of subsequent supplies and not in respect of the order dated 12th December 1983. Mr. Sanghavi has tried to create an impression on the mind of the Court as if the plaintiff had received certain benefits from the Government of India in respect of its claim for drawback etc. It is not possible to accept this submission. It is not to be found in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the 1st defendant and it is not borne out by the correspondence or other documents on record.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd vs Bellamy Constructions And ... on 6 September, 2018

"13. At this juncture it seems necessary to analyze the law relating to bank guarantees. The rule is well established that a bank issuing a guarantee is not concerned with the underlying contract between the parties to the contract. The duty of the bank under a performance guarantee is created by the document itself. Once the documents are in order, the bank giving the guarantee must honour the same and make payment. Ordinarily, unless there is an allegation of fraud or the like, the Courts will not interfere, directly or indirectly, to withhold payment, otherwise trust in commerce, internal and international, would be irreparably damaged. But that does not mean that the parties to the underlying contract cannot settle their disputes with respect to allegations of breach by resorting to litigation or arbitration as stipulated in the contract. The remedy arising ex-contractu is not barred and the cause of action for the same is independent of enforcement of the guarantee. See United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India, (SCC at 784 : SCR at p. 325); Centax (India) ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc. and U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Prabhakar Engineers Private Ltd. on 21 July, 1992

16. Now the only question is as to whether the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., , is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. One distinguishing feature in the present case from the facts of the aforesaid Supreme Court case is the bank guarantee given in the present case is out of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Further in this case it is the case of the respondent that whatever required to be done under the contract for which the guarantee was given has been done by the respondent and, therefore, there is no question of enforcing the bank guarantee. It is true that as to whether the supply by the respondent is proper or not, whether the error in work done as per the contract or not, the decision of the petitioner Karkhana is final on that point but in spite of the foresaid clause since to show that the respondent has performed its part of the contract as per the terms of the contract, the respondent is relying on the document furnished by the petitioner and, therefore, in such facts and circumstances of the case if injunction is not given and the petitioner is allowed to enforce the Bank guarantee, the same will amount to deriving unjust enrichment to the petitioner which the aforesaid Supreme Court case also considered as one of the exceptions to the general rule that no injunction should be given against the irrevocable bank guarantee.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next