Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Tarapore & Co., Madras vs M/S. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow And Anr on 26 November, 1968

Arul Murugan Traders vs Rashtriya Chemicals And Fertilisers ... on 29 March, 1984

Though in Tarapore and Co., Madras v. V/0 Tractoroexport, Moscow it was in respect of a letter of credit, in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India AIR 1961 SC 1426, as to how a bank guarantee should be dealt with having been well laid down, what further requires to be considered is, whether plaintiff's case would be an exceptional case warranting interference by court.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. vs Korula Rubber Co. P. Ltd. And Another on 11 July, 1986

In support of the contention, reliance mainly was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarapore and Co. v. Tractoroexport, Moscow, . There, what had happened was that in pursuance of a contract with a Russian firm for supply for machinery, an Indian firm opened a confirmed, irrevocable and divisible letter of credit with a bank in favour of the Russian firm. In a suit by the Indian firm alleging that the machinery supplied was not up to the contract, the Supreme Court held that in that suit the court would not be justified in granting temporary injunction restraining the bank as well as the Russian firm from taking any further steps in pursuance of the letter of credit. The Supreme Court allowing the appeal expressed the view that an irrevocable letter of credit had a definite implication. It was a mechanism was bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade. Except under very exceptional circumstances. the courts should not interfere with that mechanism. The Supreme Court further observed that the opening of the confirmed letter of credit constituted a bargain between the banker and the vendor of the goods which imposed upon the banker an absolute obligation to pay irrespective of any dispute there might be between the parties as to whether the goods were up to contract or not. A vendor of goods selling against a confirmed letter of credit was selling under the assurance that nothing would prevent him from receiving the price. If the buyer had an enforceable claim that adjustment must be made by way of the refund by the seller and not by way or retention by the buyer. The letter of credit was independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transaction. The autonomy of an irrevocable letter of credit was entitled to protection. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court iterfered with the injunction granted by the trial court. It has to be mentioned that in that case there was an irrevocable letter of credit the operation of which was being restrained by way of injunction. In the instant case, the obligation between the plaintiff and the State Bank of India does not arise under any irrevocable letter of credit. The importance of irrevocable letters of credit being a mechanism of international trade was emphasised by the Supreme Court because of the special relationship between the banker and the customer. That principle will not apply to contract or a letter or guarantee given by a banker to a bank.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishna Traders vs Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd on 5 February, 2024

28 | P a g e certified the documentation, reasonably anticipating or being aware of the possibility that this certification could be abused. Law assures the exporter and its Bank to repose in the expectation, nay, certainty, that the consignment, which is the subject-matter of the letter of credit, is not usurped by the importer/consignee or its agents, without remitting payment to the consignor's Bank. This is a strict liability cast on the bank which opens the letter of credit, since otherwise international trade and commerce will virtually and indubitably come to a standstill. It is only when irretrievable injury is bound to result and it is plainly evident that there is egregious fraud strictly ascribable to the beneficiary of the LC, that a reason to insulate a party before it against liability and that too, comes about only through the prompt intervention and interdiction of a court of law. This Court has consistently adhered to this position of law even through the passage of several decades. The LC has the effect of creating a bargain between the banker and the vendor of goods, a deemed nexus between the seller and the issuing Bank, rendering the latter liable to the seller to pay the purchase price or to accept a bill of exchange upon tender of the documents envisaged and stipulated in the LC (see Tarapore and Co. v. V.O. Tractors Export [(1969) 1 SCC 233: AIR 1970 SC 891] where Halsbury's Law of England have been relied upon).
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Majumdar - Full Document

Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. vs Koruls Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 11 July, 1986

In support of this contention reliance mainly was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarapore and Co.. Madras v. Tractors Export. Moscow, . There what had happened was that in pursuance of a contract with a Russian firm for-supply of machinery, an Indian firm opened a confirmed, irrevocable and divisible letter of credit with a Bank in favour of the Russian firm. In a wit by the Indian firm alleging that the, machinery supplied was not up to the contract, the Supreme Court held that in that suit the,Court would not be justified in granting temporary injunction restraining the Bank as well as the Russia" firm front taking any further steps in pursuance of t he letter of create. The Supreme Court allowing t fie appeal expressed the view that an irrevocable letter of credit had a definite implication. It was a mechanism of 41reat importance in international trade. Any inference with that mechanism was bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade. Except under very exceptional circumstances, the Courts should not interfere with that mechanism. The Supreme Court further observed that opening of a confirmed letter of credit constituted a bargain between the banker and the vendor Of t lie goods which imposed upon the banker he absolute obligation to pay irrespective of any dispute there might be between the parties as to whether the~ goods were up to contract or not. A vendor of goods selling against a confirmed letter of credit was selling under the assurance that nothing would prevent him from receiving the price. If the buyer had an enforceable claim that adjustment must be made by way of refund by the seller ,and not by the way of retention by the buyer. The letter of credit was independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transaction. The autonomy of an irrevocable letter of credit was entitled to protection. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court, interfered with the injunction granted by the trial Court. It has to be mentioned that in that case there was an irrevocable letter of credit the operation of which was being restrained by way of injunction. In the instant case the obligation between the State Bank of India act the Bank of Alexandria or the obligation between the plaintiff and the State Bank of India does not arise under any irrevocable letter of credit. The importance of irrevocable letter of credit being mechanism of international trade was emphasised by the Supreme Court because of special relationship between the banker and the customer. That principle will not supply to contract-or letter of guarantee given by a banker to a bank.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next