Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.36 seconds)U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
In the case of U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh
Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. [(1988) 1 SCC 174]
which was the case of a works contract where the
performance guarantee given under the contract was sought to
be invoked, this Court, after referring extensively to English
and Indian cases on the subject, said that the guarantee must
be honoured in accordance with its terms. The bank which
gives the guarantee is not concerned in the least with the
relations between the supplier and the customer; nor with the
question whether the supplier has performed his contractual
obligation or not, nor with the question whether the supplier
is in default or not. The bank must pay according to the tenor
of its guarantee on demand without proof or condition. There
O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 88/2020 Page 9 of 22
are only two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is a
case when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice.
The fraud must be of an egregious nature such as to vitiate
the entire underlying transaction.
Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare ... vs National Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd. And Anr on 11 July, 2007
9. Advancing submissions by way of rejoinder, Mr. Sethi disputes
the contention, of Dr. Singhvi, that egregious fraud is the sole ground
on which the invocation of a bank guarantee can be stayed. Rather,
submits Mr. Sethi, the decisions on which Dr. Singhvi placed reliance,
themselves carve out a second circumstance, justifying such stay,
namely the existence of special equities. Where refusal to grant stay
would result in injustice to the petitioner, Mr. Sethi submits that the
existence of special equities stood established. Mr. Sethi places
reliance on Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane v.
National Heavy Engineering Coop. Ltd4 and U. P. State Sugar
Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd5.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996
9. Advancing submissions by way of rejoinder, Mr. Sethi disputes
the contention, of Dr. Singhvi, that egregious fraud is the sole ground
on which the invocation of a bank guarantee can be stayed. Rather,
submits Mr. Sethi, the decisions on which Dr. Singhvi placed reliance,
themselves carve out a second circumstance, justifying such stay,
namely the existence of special equities. Where refusal to grant stay
would result in injustice to the petitioner, Mr. Sethi submits that the
existence of special equities stood established. Mr. Sethi places
reliance on Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane v.
National Heavy Engineering Coop. Ltd4 and U. P. State Sugar
Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd5.
M/S Gangotri Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2016
In fact, in para 41 of the report in
Gangotri Enterprises Ltd v. U.O.I.6, the Supreme Court, even while
noting the above legal position, held that, while there could be no
quarrel with the propositions emerging from the above decisions,
"every case has to be decided with reference to the facts of the case
involved therein".
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007
In Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Coal Tar Refining
Co.7, the following six principles, governing injuncting of invocation
of unconditional bank guarantees, find place in para 14 of the report:
Standard Chartered Bank vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
16. After taking stock of earlier authorities on the subject, the
recent decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank
7
(2007) 8 SCC 110
O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 88/2020 Page 12 of 22
Ltd v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd8 encapsulates the legal
position, in para 23 of the report, thus:
Section 15 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Svenska Handelsbanken vs Indian Charge Chrome (Dayal, J.) on 15 October, 1993
7. Vehemently opposing the prayer of Mr. Sethi, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1, submits that, in law, the only ground on which
invocation of a bank guarantee can be stayed, is the existence of
egregious fraud, for which purpose Dr. Singhvi relies on U. P.
Cooperative Federation Ltd v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P)
Ltd1 and Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome2 . Dr.
Singhvi submits that the petitioner has levelled a bald and baseless
allegation of fraud, against Respondent No. 1, which is entirely
insufficient to justify the prayer for restraining the invocation of the
bank guarantees in question.
1