Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.50 seconds)
State Bank Of India vs Nihar Fathima on 17 July, 2008 cites

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

9.The learned Counsel relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 568 (U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION V. SUMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD), would submit that in order to revoke a bank guarantee which is unconditional, the party who seeks to revoke the same, should show the fraud in connection with such bank guarantee either, or if the encashment of the unconditional bank guarantee is allowed, it would result in an irretrievable harm and injustice to one of the parties concerned; that if either of the grounds is not available, then an unconditional bank guarantee what is one in question cannot be allowed to be revoked; that under the circumstances, the first defendant/appellant should be allowed to invoke the same; that the contentions put forth by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 should have been rejected by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the appeals have got to be ordered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

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., 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 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document
1