Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Aquafil Polymesr Company Private ... vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited & on 11 June, 2014 cites

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

21. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dave for the plaintiff placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Adani Exports Limited V/s. Marketing Service Incorporated and Others reported in 2005(2) G.L.H. 156 so as to demonstrate that if injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to encash the said Bank Guarantees is not granted then there is likelihood of irretrievable injustice to the plaintiff and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to continue the said Bank Guarantees in favour of the defendant No.1 till final disposal of the suit. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dave also shown willingness to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and also to co-operate with the learned trial Judge to conclude the trial within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court. The said decision rendered in the case of Adani Exports Limited (supra) is not helpful to the plaintiff in any manner for the simple reason that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove fraud so as to say that the plaintiff has got prima facie case for interim relief and balance of convenience.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Steel Works ... vs M/S. Tarapore & Co. Madras on 17 January, 1989

18. Under these circumstances, the plea taken as regards "irretrievable injustice/loss" is again vague and not supported by any evidence. So, the plaintiff can always get relief provided it makes its case before the Court and there is no allegation that it would be difficult to realize the amount from the defendant No.1 in case the plaintiff succeeds before the Court. It is also fruitful to refer to observations recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Vs. Tarapore & Co. and another reported in (1996) 5 SCC 34 in para Nos.8 to 12 and 14.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 71 - S S Quadri - Full Document

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

8. With respect to an irrevocable letter of credit this Page 16 of 25 C/AO/466/2012 CAV JUDGMENT Court in the case of Tarapore & Co. vs. Tractors Export, Moscow 1969 (2) SCR 920 pointed out that such a contract between the banker and the beneficiary is independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or other underlying transaction and quoted with approval the following observations made by Jenkins L.J. in Hamzeh Malas and Sons vs. British Imex Industries Ltd. 1958 (2) Q.B. 127:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 76 - K S Hegde - Full Document

United Commercial Bank vs Bank Of India And Others on 26 March, 1981

In United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India 1981 (3) SCR 300 this Court again emphasised that obligation of a Bank in such a case is absolute, as a letter of credit constitutes the sole contract with the banker and the bank issuing the letter of credit has no concern with any question that may arise between the seller and the purchaser of the goods. Therein the following passage from the judgment of Kerr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 288 - A P Sen - Full Document

General Electric Technical ... vs Punj Sons (P) Ltd. And Another on 7 August, 1991

In General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. vs. Punj Sons (p) Ltd. (1991 (4) SCC 230) while dealing with a case of bank guarantee given for securing mobilisation advance it Page 19 of 25 C/AO/466/2012 CAV JUDGMENT has been held that the right of a contractor to recover certain amounts under running bills would have no relevance to the liability of the bank under the guarantee given by In that case also the stipulations in the bank guarantee were that the bank had to pay on demand without a demur and that the beneficiary was to be the sole judge as regards the loss or damage caused to it. This Court held that notwithstanding the dispute between the contractor and the party giving the contract, the bank was under an obligation to discharge its liability as per the terms of the bank guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 126 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Workersconstruction ... vs G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers)Pvt. Ltd on 13 September, 1995

Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (6) SCC 68 and Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. Vs. G.S. Atwal & Co (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. 1995 (6) SCC 76 were also cases of work contracts wherein bank guarantees were given either towards advances or release of security deposits or for due, performance of the contract. In both those cases this Court held that the bank guarantees being irrevocable and unconditional and as the beneficiary was made the sole judge on the question of breach of performance of the contract and the extent of loss or damages an injunction restraining the beneficiary from invoking the bank guarantees could not have been granted. The above referred three subsequent decisions of this Court also go to show that the view taken by the High Court is clearly wrong."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 95 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next