Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Maharashtra Stateelectricity Board & ... on 13 September, 1995

The State Of Bihar & Others vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. & ... on 20 March, 1998

12. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board . In that case the question of invocation of bank guarantee was involved. On the facts of that case it was held that the work was successfully completed, plant was taken over by the M.S.E.B. and in view of the execution of the contract the M.S.E.B. cannot be permitted to invoke the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court further observed that the M.S.E.B. must be restrained from invoking the bank guarantee to prevent the irretrievable injustice. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has relied upon its decision and has not differed therefrom.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - A Y Sakhare - Full Document

Idcol Cement Ltd., Represented By Its ... vs Fuller India Ltd. And Anr. on 27 January, 1998

15. Our attention was invited to a number of decisions on this issue - among them, to Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. C.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd., the latest decision is in the case of State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. where this Court has summed up the position by stating : (S.C.C. p.741, para 13) 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 made payment ordinarily unless there is an allegation of fraued or the like. The courts will not interfere directly or indirectly to withhold payment, otherwise trust in commerce internal and international would be irreparably damage. But that does not mean that the parties to the underlying contract cannot settle the disputes with respect to allegations of breach by resorting to litigation or arbitration as stipulated in he contract. The remedy arising ex contractu is not barred and the cause of action for the same is independent of enforcement of the guarantee.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd vs M/S.Sirupooluvapatti Common Effluent on 11 March, 2011

The reliance made by the learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment rendered in LARSEN and TOUBRO LTD. vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [(1995) 6 SCC 68] would also will have to be held against it. In the said case while dealing with a conditional guarantee, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that in a case of a conditional guarantee for a partial release of retention money which was to enure only till the successful completion of the trial operation and that event having enured, the guarantee shall not be encashed. In the present case on hand, such a situation has not arisen because the appellant has prima facie failed to enure and comply with the agreement between the parties entered through the Memorandum of Understanding by completing the project to the satisfaction of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In fact, in the said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that a mere irretrievable injury without a prima facie case of establishing fraud is of no consequence.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Kec International Limited vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. ... on 25 January, 2016

8. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Sr. Counsel took us through various conditions of the agreement particularly the conditions with regard to issuance of performance guarantee and advance payment guarantee. The terms and conditions of the guarantee and canvassed four questions in support of the appellant. It was argued by him that two advance bank guarantees for securing the advance were purely conditional and were furnished only as a security towards the advance amount received by the appellant. It was said that out of the advance amount received, an amount of Rs. 5,60,51,949/- is already recovered and adjusted from the running bill and, therefore, encashment of the entire amount under these two bank guarantees is an illegal financial misappropriation. It was tried to be emphasised that in the bank guarantee the words like "unconditional" or "unequivocal" are not used and, therefore, the bank guarantees are conditional one and such a bank guarantee could not be encashed in the manner done. It was emphasised that as the bank guarantees are conditional bank guarantee unilateral encashment of the bank guarantee in the manner done is unsustainable, particularly, when a sum of Rs. 5.6 Crore have already been recovered from the loan advanced. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Maharastra State Electricity Board and Others - (1995) 6 SCC 68 it was argued that the purpose for which the bank guarantees were issued is already exhausted and it was tried to be argued that encashment of bank guarantee was not proper.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - S K Palo - Full Document

Grn Constructions Private Limited vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 19 April, 2024

10. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier Judgment of this Court dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.33077 of 2023 and the contents of the letter dated 15.04.2024 of the General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited addressed to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Somajiguda and also the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in "Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others" in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 68 (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.04.2024 and 6 SN,J WP_10292_2024 furnish the documents as requested by the petitioner in the said letter i.e., a) b) c) d) (referred to and extracted above) and also the concerned Vigilance Enquiry Report from Vigilance Department, State of Telangana as prayed for in the present writ petition, within two (02) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the petitioner is directed to extend bank guarantee till 30.06.2024.
Telangana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Adani Exports Ltd. vs Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 6 September, 2000

32. Mr. S.N. Shelat has cited one another authority in case of Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors., II (1996) BC 255 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 334, wherein it has been held that Bank guarantee can be said to be valid till successful completion of trial operation. In that case, Maharashtra Electricity Board admitted that plant after successful trial operation, performance, test, etc. has been taken over. Once the contract has been completed, the injunction from encashing Bank guarantee can be refused. Mr. S.N. Shelat has argued that this cited case is with regard to completion of work under contract for which Bank guarantee had been given. The same analogy of principles will be applicable to this present case on its extreme other end. He has argued that when a concluded enforceable binding agreement has not come into existence between plaintiff and defendant No. 1, certainly defendant No. 1 can be restrained from encashing the Bank guarantee by defendant No. 1.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Geo Tech. Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction ... on 28 August, 1998

29. Now let us turn to the plea of irretrievable injustice. 'Irretrievable injustice' would arise not only from the performance of a written contract but also from outside the terms of the contract. The principle of 'irretrievable injustice' is not a rigid or inflexible formula inasmuch as the circumstances which give rise to it may vary from facts to facts. It cannot be cribbed, cabined or confined within the framework of the terms laid down in a Bank guarantee or the underlying contract. Of course the solemnity and the credibility of a Bank guarantee has to be respected and upheld at all times but at the same time when there is irretrievable injustice it oversteps all other situations. The circumstances involved in this case will have to be evaluated in the abovesaid premise.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - G Sivarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next