Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Federal Bank Ltd vs V.M Jog Engineering Ltd. And Ors on 29 September, 2000

Tamil Nadu Small Industries vs Indian Bank on 12 December, 2008

In 2000(6) Supreme 619 - Federal Bank Ltd., vs. V.M.Jog Engineering Ltd. & Ors., it has been held that it is the duty of the negotiating bank to examine with reasonable care that the documents on their face, conformed to the terms and conditions of Letter of Credited once the issuing bank confirmed genuineness of documents, it is not open to them to reimburse the amount to the negotiating bank which had discounted Bill of Exchange on the basis of confirmation of issuing bank.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

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

These observations have been repeated in United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India [(1981) 2 SCC 766], U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. [(1988) 1 SCC 29 | P a g e 174], Federal Bank Ltd. v. V.M. Jog Engg. Ltd. [(2001) 1 SCC 663], Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. [(2007) 8 SCC 110] The opening bank must only look to assure itself that the invocation is in terms of the LC, and the completion of this exercise has consistently been circumscribed to a short period, which in the case in hand is one week as per Article 13-B of UCP, 500."
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Majumdar - Full Document

Madan Kukreja vs Banque Scalbert Dupont S.A. & Anr. on 26 August, 2009

39. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 that there are two separate and distinct transactions. One is the actual shipment of the goods from India to France by the Plaintiff through a carrier for being delivered to the entity in France. The second is the transaction concerning the payment for the goods against documents. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Federal Bank v. V.M. Jog Engineering Ltd. (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Octrix Holdings (S) Pte. Ltd vs Vrikish Transworld Holdings Ltd on 22 August, 2008

35.The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the invocation or encashment of the bank guarantee or letters of credit can be made in a case reported in (2001) 1 SCC 663 (FEDERAL BANK LTD. V. V.M. JOG ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS) and has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - M Chockalingam - Full Document

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

24.The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment in FEDERAL BANK LTD. vs. V.M.JOG ENGINEERING LTD. AND OTHERS [(2001) 1 SCC 663]. In our considered view the said judgment lays down the ratio which is totally against the appellant. The Honourable Apex Court in the said judgment was pleased to hold that the contract of bank guarantee being distinct and independent from the main contract a bank cannot refuse encashment except when there is a fraud committed by the seller or where there is encashment resulting in irretrievable damage. It was further held that an act of fraud has to be proved. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court to the facts on hand, we are of the view that neither a fraud nor a irretrievable loss is involved.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

M/S. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries vs State Bank Of India on 23 May, 2007

Further, in any case, it is admitted by the Complainant and the SBI that there were no discrepancies as alleged by the HSBC. In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the issuing bank, HSBC to pay the amount as per Art. 16(b) which provides that refusal by the issuing bank to pay must be on the documents alone as appears on the their face to be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the credit. [Re. Federal Bank Vs. V.M. Jog (Supra)].
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Krbl Ltd vs Cbi And Anr on 8 February, 2022

22. At the outset, it is clarified that the stance of the petitioner that it is only a beneficiary who does not have the duty to check the authenticity of the LC's cannot preclude the Respondent No. 1 from interrogating the petitioner regarding the export made by the company and asking for the relevant documents in furtherance of the investigation. The further allegation that the bank advising the exporter and the bank advising the importer which have opened the LC and the importer have no quarrel with the LC and, therefore, no case is made out at all cannot be accepted. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA W.P.(CRL) 1597/2020 Page 13 of 15 Signing Date:10.02.2022 18:57 allegation is that the LCs have been fabricated and back-dated in order to circumvent the Government's notification banning exports. Obviously, no one else will have a grievance over the transaction. It is the duty of the CBI who has received information regarding the manipulation of the LC's to investigate into the crime which has a serious effect on the economy of the country. A decision was taken to ban export of pulses to ensure that there is no dearth of the same in the local market and India is not forced to import pulses at a high cost. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. VM Jog Engineering Ltd. & Ors, (2001) 1 SCC 663 is not applicable here. It has to be investigated as to whether the petitioner was in connivance with the banks in back-dating the LC's for their mutual benefit. The current matter at hand pertains to serious offences under Sections 120B, 468, 471 and 420. The investigation herein is bound to take time due to the complicated factual background and the presence of both national and international networks. It is clear that despite periodic reminders, there have been administrative and systemic delays over which the Respondent No. 1 had no control. It is also pertinent to note that there has been no substantial prejudice caused to the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also not been able to show any tangible loss in its trading activities.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next