Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)
Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018 cites

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document

U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996

10. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first is when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice and a fraud of the beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. The second exception to the general rule of non-intervention is when there are "special equities" in favour of injunction, such as when "irretrievable injury" or "irretrievable injustice" would occur if such an injunction were not granted. The general rule and its exceptions has been reiterated in so many judgments of this Court, that in U.P. State Sigar Corporation vs. Sumac International Ltd., (hereinafter "U.P. State Sugar Corporation") this Court, correctly declared that the law was "settled" .
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Texmaco Ltd. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 12 May, 1978

In the case of Texmaco Ltd. v. State Bank of India and ors. - AIR 1979 Calcutta 44, one of us (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.) held that in the absence of special equities arising from a particular situation which might entitle the party on whose behalf guarantee is given to an injunction restraining the bank in performance of bank guarantee and in the absence of any clear fraud, the bank must pay to the party in whose favour guarantee is given on demand, if so stipulated, and whether the terms are such have to be found out from the performance guarantee as such. There the Court held that where though the guarantee was given for the performance by the party on whose behalf guarantee was given, in an orderly manner its contractual obligation, the obligation was undertaken by the bank to repay the amount on "first demand" and "without contestation, demur or protest and without reference to such party and without questioning the legal relationship subsisting between the party in whose favour guarantee was given and the party on whose behalf guarantee was given," and the guarantee also stipulated that the bank should forthwith pay the amount due "notwithstanding any dispute between the parties,"
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 46 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 1999

The Judgment and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 22 of the Judgment in Hindustan Construction Company (supra) cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to have diluted the law on bank guarantees which has been reiterated repeatedly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even after the Judgement in the case of Hindustan Construction Company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 245 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next