Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987

Futecht Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Abott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 8 February, 2016

26. Faced with the question as to whether an agreement arrived at between two parties that one of the two courts having jurisdiction, would decide all the disputes relating to such agreement, was hit by the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, this Court in Hakam Singh case held that where two courts or more have the O.M.P. (I) No.515/2015 Page 11 of 18 jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an agreement between the parties that one of such courts would have the jurisdiction to decide the disputes arising between the parties from such agreement would not be contrary to public policy and would not, therefore, be contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - M Singh - Full Document

Jyoti Structure Ltd vs Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & ... on 6 September, 2016

"5. Before we adjudicate the rival pleas urged before us by counsel for the parties, it will be useful to bear in mind the salient principles to be borne in mind by the court in the matter of grant of injunction against the enforcement of a bank guarantee / irrevocable letter of credit. After survey of the earlier decisions of this Court in United Commercial Bank v Bank of India, U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd., General Electric Technical Services Co. Inc v Punj Sons (P) Ltd. and the decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Elian and Rabbath v Matsas and Matsas and a few American decisions, this Court in Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome AIR 1994 SC 626, laid down the law thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 6 - V Bakhru - Full Document

G.S.Developers & Contractors Private ... vs Alpha G. Group Development Private Ltd & ... on 19 February, 2016

In U.P Cooperative Federation vs. Singh Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd (1988) 1 SCC 174, the respondent therein entered into an agreement with the appellant for constructing a vanaspati manufacturing plant for the latter. The contract required the respondent to furnish two bank guarantees for proper construction and successful completion of the plant. Bank of India executed two bank ARB. A. (COMM) 07/2016 Page 7 of 17 guarantees in favour of the appellant. Under the terms of guarantee the bank undertook to make unconditional payments on demand without reference to the respondent. The guarantees also provided that the appellant would be the sole judge for deciding whether the respondent had fulfilled the terms of the contract or not. Disputes arose between the parties as to the erection and performance of the plant. The seller approached the civil court seeking injunction restraining the purchaser from invoking the bank guarantee. The High Court, proceeding on the basis that the injunction was sought not against the bank but against the appellant, restrained the appellant from invoking the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court after elaborate consideration of the matter held:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Indo Alusys Industries Ltd vs India Bulls Construction Ltd on 29 January, 2016

In U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd.: [1988]1SCR1124, the law laid down in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase Manhattan Bank [1984] 1 All E.R. 351 was approved and it was held that an unconditional Bank Guarantee could be invoked in terms thereof by the person in whose favour the Bank Guarantee was given and the Courts would not grant any injunction restraining the invocation except in the case of fraud or irretrievable injury.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Amrcl-Harsha (Jv),Represented By ... vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Represented ... on 29 September, 2016

The Courts have recognised only two exceptions to the principle that the beneficiary under a Bank Guarantee has unfettered right for its invocation, namely, (1) that the Bank Guarantee was obtained by fraud, or, (2) that the invocation of the Bank Guarantee would cause irretrievable injustice. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. , in a scholarly exposition of the English and Indian law on the subject, made the following observations, at para-19:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Energo Engineering Projects Ltd vs Trf Ltd on 23 December, 2016

14. It is also well settled that if the bank cannot be restrained from honoring a bank guarantee, the beneficiary of the bank guarantee cannot be restrained from invoking the bank guarantee, for one cannot do indirectly, what one is not free to do indirectly. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Sengh Consultants and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 174.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Kochi Salem Pipeline Pvt. Ltd vs Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory ... on 2 September, 2016

"25. The law relating invocation of bank guarantees is no longer res integra. The law is well settled that the interference by the Courts is permissible only where the invocation of the bank guarantee is against the terms of the guarantee or if there is any fraud. In the absence of the same, the bank is liable to pay the guaranteed amount without any demur whatsoever and the bank is bound to honour the guarantee irrespective of any dispute raised by is customer since a bank guarantee is an independent and a separate contract. It is also a well settled principle that fraud, if any, must be of an egregious nature, which would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee and the beneficiary seeks to take advantage of the situation. Allowing encashment of bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned has also been recognized by the Courts as a justifiable ground for interference, however, the harm or injustice contemplated must be of such an a exceptional and irretrievable nature as would override the terms of the guarantee [vide U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174; Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 544; Himadri Chemicals 19 Apl.No.14 of 2014 and IA No.26 of 2016 Industries Ltd. vs. Coal Tar Refining Company (2007) 8 SCC 110; Mahatama Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane vs. National Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 470.]
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Allahabad Bank And 2 Ors on 29 February, 2016

The courts have carved out only two exceptions. A fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee. Hence if there is such a fraud of which the beneficiary seeks to take advantage, he can be restrained from doing so. .... ...... ..... ...... In the case of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd.(1988 [1] SCC 174), which was the case of works contract where the performance guarantee given under the contract was sought to be invoked, this Court, after referring extensively to English and Indian cases on the subject, said that the guarantee must be honoured in accordance with its terms. The bank which gives the guarantee is not concerned in the least with the relations between the supplier and the customer; nor with the question whether the supplier has performed his contractual obligation or not, nor with the question whether the supplier is in default or not. The bank must pay according to the tenor of its guarantee on demand without proof or condition. There are only two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is a case when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice. The fraud must be of an egregious nature such as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 3 Next