Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Capacite Infra Projects Ltd vs M/S. Siddha Sheka Developers Llp on 21 April, 2021 cites

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

11. Except under these circumstances, the courts should not readily issue injunction COMAP. No.53 OF 2021 26 to restrain the realisation of a bank guarantee or a letter of credit. So far as the first exception is concerned i.e. of fraud, one has to satisfy the Court that the fraud in connection with the bank guarantee or letter of credit would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee or letter of credit. So far as the second exception is concerned, this Court has held in that decision that it relates to cases where allowing encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned. While dealing with the case of fraud, this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. held as follows: (SCC p. 197, para 53) The fraud must be of an egregious nature such as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document

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

10.4. The contention of the Appellant is that as of the date of the invocation, only an amount of Rs.14.17 lakhs remains to be adjusted, and the entire Bank Guarantee could not have been invoked and encashed. 10.5. Per contra, the contention of Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for COMAP. No.53 OF 2021 34 Respondent No. 1, is that the Bank Guarantee had been invoked in a proper and required manner, and neither the Bank nor the Appellant can contend that the Bank Guarantee cannot be invoked. The Bank Guarantee being a commercial document, has to be given a commercial meaning. The purpose of issuance of a Bank Guarantee will be defeated if an injunction is granted restraining the invocation of the Bank Guarantee. 10.6. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel, has relied upon the Hindustan Construction's case (supra) to contend that invocation of the Bank Guarantee has to be made in a manner provided under the Bank Guarantee. If the same is not done in that particular manner, then the invocation COMAP. No.53 OF 2021 35 is held to be bad and requires to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 245 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007

Under the terms of the contract it is stipulated that the respondent is required to give unconditional bank guarantees against advance payments as also a similar bank guarantee for due delivery of the contracted plant within the stipulated period. In the absence of any fraud the Appellant is entitled to realise the bank guarantees. 7.4.5. Himadri Chemicals Industries Limited vs. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110 more particularly, Paras 11 and 13 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 256 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Daewoo Motors India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 February, 2003

10.7. Sri. Udaya Holla learned Senior counsel by relying upon the decision in the case of Daewoo Motors (supra) has contended that the Hindustan Construction's case is not applicable to the present facts since, in Hindustan Construction's case, the Bank Guarantee was not an unconditional Bank Guarantee whereas in the present case is an unconditional Bank Guarantee. Be that as it may, he submits that the respondent has invoked the Bank Guarantee in terms COMAP. No.53 OF 2021 36 of the said Bank Guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1