Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996
21. Numerous decisions of this Court
rendered over a span of nearly two decades
have laid down and reiterated the principles
which the courts must apply while
considering the question whether to grant an
injunction which has the effect of restraining
the encashment of a bank guarantee. We do
not think it necessary to burden this
judgment by referring to all of them. Some of
the more recent pronouncements on this
point where the earlier decisions have been
considered and reiterated are Svenska
Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome,
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB,
Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v.
G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. and
U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac
International Ltd. The general principle
which has been laid down by this Court has
been summarised in the case of U.P. State
Sugar Corpn. As follows: (SCC p.574, para
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
In U.P. Cooperation
Federation Ltd. (Supra) also it was held that the fraud pleaded
must be of an egregious nature so as to vitiate the entire
underlying transaction of the Bank Guarantee. It is fraud of the
beneficiary and not the fraud of somebody else that would make
the Court to grant the Order of injunction as asked for.
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
In A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies this
Court said: (SCC p. 170, para 12)
―12. A cause of action means every fact, which if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove in order to support his right to a judgment of
the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which
taken with the law applicable to them gives the
plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It
must include some act done by the defendant since in
the absence of such an act no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded. It does not
comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but
every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to
enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if
not proved would give the defendant a right to
immediate judgment must be part of the cause of
action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence
which may be set up by the defendant nor does it
depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by
the plaintiff.‖ (emphasis supplied)