Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (2.74 seconds)
M/S. China Petroleum Pipeline Bureau ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. on 28 September, 2018
cites
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
In this behalf I may only set forth the following observations made by the
Supreme Court in U.P.Cooperative Federation Ltd v. Singh Consultants and
Engineers (P) Ltd.2: -
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
29 It is unfortunate that the High Court did not consider it
necessary to refer to various judicial pronouncements of this Court in
which the principles which have to be followed while examining an
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 373/2018 Page 12 of 14
application for grant of interim relief have been clearly laid down.
The observation of the High Court that reference to judicial decisions
will not be of much importance was clearly a method adopted by it in
avoiding to follow and apply the law as laid down by this Court. Yet
another serious error which was committed by the High Court, in the
present case, was not to examine the terms of the bank guarantee and
consider the letters of invocation which had been written by the
appellant. If the High Court had trail the trouble of examining the
documents on record, which had been referred to by the trial court,
in its order refusing to grant injunction, the court would not have
granted the interim injunction. We also do not find any justification
for the High Court in invoking the alleged principle of unjust
enrichment to the facts of the present case and then deny the
appellant the right to encash the bank guarantee. If the High Court
had taken the trouble to see the law on the point it would have been
clear that in encashment of bank guarantee the applicability of the
principle of undue enrichment has no application."
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1