Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Indian Bank vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries on 1 September, 2016 cites

Tarapore & Co., Madras vs M/S. V/O Tractors Export, Moscow And Anr on 26 November, 1968

"7. As we see it, therefore, keeping in perspective that the Importer's Bank i.e., Appellant before us, should not have certified the documentation, reasonably anticipating or being aware of the possibility that this certification could be abused. Law assures the Exporter and its Bank to repose in the expectation, nay, certainty, that the consignment, which is the subject-matter of the Letter of Credit, is not usurped by the Importer/Consignee or its agents, without remitting payment to the consignor's Bank. This is a strict liability cast on the bank which opens the Letter of Credit, since otherwise International trade and commerce will virtually and indubitably come to a standstill. It is only when irretrievable injury is bound to result and it is plainly evident that there is egregious fraud strictly ascribable to the beneficiary of the LC, that a reason to insulate a party before it against liability and that too, comes about only through the prompt intervention and interdiction of a Court of law. This Court has consistently adhered to this position of law even through the passage of several decades. The LC has the effect of creating a bargain between the banker and the vendor of goods, a deemed nexus between the Seller and the Issuing Bank, rendering the latter liable to the Seller to pay the purchase price or to accept a Bill of Exchange upon tender of the documents envisaged and stipulated in the LC (See Tarapore and Co. vs. V.O. Tractors Export, AIR 1970 SC 891 where Halsbury's Law of England have been relied upon)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 76 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Vinitec Electronics Private Limited vs Hcl Infosystems Limited on 2 November, 2007

(i) On the side of the appellant, Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd., vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 544, has been brought to the notice of this Court for the proposition that the Bank Guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary. The Bank is always obliged to honour his guarantee as long as it is an unconditional and irrevocable one. In this Judgment, it has been further held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 170 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Federal Bank Ltd vs V.M Jog Engineering Ltd. And Ors on 29 September, 2000

(ii) The second Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to was Federal Bank Ltd., v. V.M.Jog Engineering Ltd., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 663, for the proposition that it is not permissible for the bank to refuse payment on the ground that the buyer is claiming that there is a breach of contract. In this Judgment, it has been further held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 122 - M J Rao - Full Document

Roshan Lal Anand And Anr. vs The Mercantile Bank Limited on 15 April, 1974

9. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ plaintiff also cited the Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in Roshan Lal Anand and another vs. Mercantile Bank Limited (DB) (Delhi), reported in [1975] Vol.75 Company Cases 519, in which the Court has extracted the principle as found in "The Law of Bankers' Commercial Credits by Gutteridge, fourth edition, page 90, which is as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Y Dayal - Full Document
1