Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs State Bank Of India, Overseas Branch, ... on 21 July, 2000

Order vs Unknown on 17 June, 2010

In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SBI, Overseas Branch, Bombay, [2000] 6 SCC 385, when a bank having given guarantee at the instance of guarantor declining to honour the guarantee on the ground that it was issued against the counter guarantee of a foreign bank which was restrained by foreign court from making payment and the foreign bank has directed the Indian bank by way of a restraint, while the Foreign Exchange Manual, 1999 does not create any impediment on the Indian bank in making payment under the bank guarantee, it was held that the beneficiary was the sole judge of the question of primary contract, as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Centurion Bank Limited vs Lersen And Tubro Limited on 24 March, 2004

In the matter of Oil & Natrual Gas Corporation Limited [Supra], it is held that, `..Encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee does not depend upon the adjudication of disputes. Also no distinction can be made between a bank guarantee for due performance of a work contract and a guarantee given towards security deposit for a contract or any other kind of guarantee. Where the beneficiary shall be the sold judge on the question of breach of primary contract, the bank shall pay the amount covered by the guarantee on demand without a demur. In the absence of a plea of fraud, guarantee has to be given effect to.'
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Galaxy Power Cables Limited vs Canara Bank And Anr. on 7 May, 2001

12. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 2, had countered this contention of their being two different types of Bank Guarantees by referring a latter decision of the Supreme Court (where however the HCCL case was not considered) in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SBI, Overseas Branch , Bombay, , in which it was observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V Sen - Full Document

Bankay Bihari G. Agrawal vs M/S Bhagwanji Meghihi & Ors. on 27 September, 2000

46. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of India, does not touch upon the issue before us. That was a case where the Supreme Court decided on the facts before it that, in fact there was no defence for suit filed and, accordingly. set aside the order of the High Court granting unconditional leave to defend the suit to the Defendant. The judgment does not indicate as to whether the delay in taking out Summons for Judgment, was considered as a material or influencing factor in affecting judicial discretion.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 58 - R P Desai - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Dabhol Power Company on 26 March, 2002

9. Shri Sorabji on the other hand submitted that whereas the respondent was under a duty to keep the bank guarantees alive, in view of Clause 6 of the bank guarantees, there was no restriction on petitioner not to encash them. Shri Sorabji submitted that Petitioner's demand is only for a part of duty which was guaranteed through the bank guarantees which were sought to be encashed at this point of time. He submitted that the petitioner had waited till the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and was not inclined to wait any further. With respect to the alleged distinction between bank guarantees for commercial requirements and statutory requisitions, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Cas Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of India wherein in para 7 it is observed by the Apex Court as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharashtra Power Development ... vs Dabhol Power Company And Ors. on 10 October, 2003

21. Now, as far as the submission of Mr. Doctor is concerned, we will be and are giving our reasons in this order while considering the admission of the appeal. Hence, no separate order on this objection itself is required. The authority relied upon by Mr. Dwarkadas, viz.Municipal Corporation v. State Bank (supra) does not help him much because there is no specific second appeal against the order of the single judge passed under Section 218-D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act unlike Section 483 of the Companies Act. The submission of Mr. Dwarkadas on Trade & Merchandise Act is contrary to Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. With reference to submission of Mr. Manmohan, it is not possible to accept that Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code itself is the contrary provision.
Bombay High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Gopal Builders And Developers vs Mrs. Maria Santana Julia Maximiana ... on 10 June, 2004

33. The case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of India AIR 2002 Bom. 32 : 2001 All M.R. (Cri.) 394 : 2003 Bank C.L.R. 387 : 2001 (4) Com. L.J. 205 (Bom.) pertained to a bank guarantee and this Court observed that a debt becomes due upon invocation of a bank guarantee. Since the debt becomes payable upon the invocation, the jurisdiction and power of the Court to award interest in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, are attracted and the Court is, therefore, empowered by the provisions of Section 3(l)(a) to award interest at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest. The Court, therefore, proceeded to award to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st October, 1993 until the date of the suit (12th March, 1996) and to the same rate from the date of filing of the suit until . payment or realisation as well as costs of the suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next