Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing Consortium Of Deepak Cable India ... vs Teestavalley Power Transmission ... on 3 September, 2014

Mytrah Vayu (Brahamputra) Private ... vs M/S. Solar Energy Corporation Of India ... on 18 March, 2024

The attention of the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd (order dated 13.02.2023), was not drawn to the earlier two Division Bench Judgements of the Delhi High Court in Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited & Abir Infrastructure Private Limited (Dcil-Aipl) Thr Abir v. Teestavalley Power Transmission Limited : 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4741, and Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5004, in both of which it was held that there were only two well recognized exceptions to the rule against permitting payment under a bank guarantee; they were (a) a fraud of egregious nature; (b) encashment of the bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice of an irreversible kind to one of the parties; there was no separate third exception of a 'special equity' justifying grant of an injunction to restrain the beneficiary from receiving under an unconditional bank I.A. No. 83/2024 IN A. No. 29/2024 Page 61 of 75 guarantee and, if there existed any third exception of a special equity, the same had to be of a kind akin to irretrievable injustice or putting a party in an irretrievable situation; special equities could not be considered as a totally separate exception but was more akin to the requirement of irretrievable injustice; 'special equities' were in a sense special circumstances which would justify granting the exceptional relief for interdicting a bank guarantee, as not granting the said relief would cause irretrievable harm or injury to the party which has otherwise established a compelling case; and commercial disputes, arising in relation to the transactions, do not present special equities.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & ... vs Railtel Corporation Of India Ltd & Anr. on 16 November, 2021

30. As is apparent from the above extract from the decision in Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited & Abir Infrastructure Private Limited (Dcil-Aipl) Thr Abir v. Teestavalley Power Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT OMP (I) (COMM) 366/2021 Page 18 of 25 RAWAL Transmission Limited (supra), special equities cannot be considered as a totally separate exception but is more akin to the requirement of irretrievable injustice. 'Special equities' are in a sense special circumstances, which would justify granting the exceptional relief for interdicting a bank guarantee as not granting the said relief would cause irretrievable harm or injury to the party who has otherwise established a compelling case. It is necessary to bear in mind that unconditional Bank Guarantees are furnished in the course of commercial transactions to enable the beneficiary to invoke the same without recourse to any adjudicatory process. Thus clearly, commercial disputes arising in relation to the transactions do not present any special equities.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

M/S. Utc Fire & Security India Ltd. vs Bhartiya Rail Bijlee Company Limitted & ... on 27 January, 2015

13. The petitioner has also contended that since the intention of the respondent in invoking the bank guarantee is to enrich itself and this not only is a fraudulent act on its part, but also inequitable. As discussed above, the fraud of egregious nature played upon the petitioner has to be fraud which has been played upon the petitioner at the time when the bank guarantees were executed by him. The fraud should be of such a nature which shows that the petitioner was deceptively asked to issue the bank guarantees. As discussed above, in the present case, the petitioner has OMP No. 529/2014 Page 12 of 13 neither pleaded nor has shown on record any facts which can show that a fraud had been played upon it at the time when the bank guarantees were executed by it. It has also been held by this Court in Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited (supra) that Courts are precluded from considering the disputes between the parties arising out of the main contract, while dealing with the matters relating to the encashment of the bank guarantees. The existence of a dispute between the parties on account of failure of the terms of the contract does not in any way affect the right of the beneficiary to encash the bank guarantee.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - D Sharma - Full Document

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

As discussed above, in the present case, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor has shown on record any facts which can show that a fraud had been played upon it at the time when the bank guarantees were executed by it. It has also been held by this Court in Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited (supra) that Courts are precluded from considering the disputes between the parties arising out of the main contract, while dealing with the matters relating to the encashment of the bank guarantees. The existence of a dispute between the parties on account of failure of the terms of the contract does not in any way affect the right of the beneficiary to encash the bank guarantee.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd & Ors on 3 December, 2019

A Division Bench of this Court Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited (supra), has reiterated the said position of law and held that the disputes pertaining to BGs have to be resolved de hors the terms of the main contract between the parties. It was further held that once it is an unconditional BG, if not honoured by the Bank, would cause irreparable damage to the trust in Commerce and deprive vital oxygen to the money supplied and money flow in Commerce, which is necessary for economic growth. Disputes pertaining to the main contract O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 234/2019 Page 55 of 66 cannot be considered by a Court, when a claim is made under a BG. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - J Singh - Full Document

B/S Beijing Spc Environment Protection ... vs M/S Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan ... on 11 July, 2025

48. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court while giving a very exhaustive Judgment on the aspect of invocation of Ban guarantee held in the case of Consortium of Deepak Cable India Limited & Abir Infrastructure Private Limited (DCIL-AIPL) v. Teestavalley Power Transmission Limited 2014 SCC Online Del 4741 that a plea of lack of good faith and/or enforcing the guarantee with an oblique purpose or that the bank guarantee is being invoked as a bargaining chip, a deterrent or in an abusive manner are all irrelevant and hence have to be ignored. There are only two well recognized exceptions to the rule against permitting payment under a bank guarantee.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document
1   2 Next