Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)
Kec International Limited vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. ... on 25 January, 2016 cites

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Maharashtra Stateelectricity Board & ... on 13 September, 1995

8. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Sr. Counsel took us through various conditions of the agreement particularly the conditions with regard to issuance of performance guarantee and advance payment guarantee. The terms and conditions of the guarantee and canvassed four questions in support of the appellant. It was argued by him that two advance bank guarantees for securing the advance were purely conditional and were furnished only as a security towards the advance amount received by the appellant. It was said that out of the advance amount received, an amount of Rs. 5,60,51,949/- is already recovered and adjusted from the running bill and, therefore, encashment of the entire amount under these two bank guarantees is an illegal financial misappropriation. It was tried to be emphasised that in the bank guarantee the words like "unconditional" or "unequivocal" are not used and, therefore, the bank guarantees are conditional one and such a bank guarantee could not be encashed in the manner done. It was emphasised that as the bank guarantees are conditional bank guarantee unilateral encashment of the bank guarantee in the manner done is unsustainable, particularly, when a sum of Rs. 5.6 Crore have already been recovered from the loan advanced. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Maharastra State Electricity Board and Others - (1995) 6 SCC 68 it was argued that the purpose for which the bank guarantees were issued is already exhausted and it was tried to be argued that encashment of bank guarantee was not proper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 76 - J S Verma - Full Document

Mp Rural Road Dev. Authority And Anr vs M/S. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers And Cont on 24 January, 2012

In support of the aforesaid contention he places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Rural Road Development Authority Vs. M/S. L.G. Choudhary and Ors. - (2012) 3 SCC 495 and an unreported judgment of this Court i.e., A.C. No.49/2012 decided on 03.12.2013 and a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joint Venture of Envio Pure Aqua System (P) Ld. Vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and others - 2013(1) M.P.H.T. 351. In support of the aforesaid contention he further argues that in the case in question both the bank guarantees are unconditional bank guarantee which can be encashed in the manner done. As the bank guarantees are loaded with terms like "without any demur", "reservation", "testing", "recourse or protest" and various other aspects of the matter. He further points out that in the bank guarantee in question, the Addl. Chief Engineer (work) is defined as an employer, which expression would also mean and include its successors, administrators and assignees. He points out that initially when the project was under construction, the Addl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 134 - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 1999

Chief Engineer (work) was under the administrative control of the Chief General Manager and thereafter the entire scheme was assigned to the Chief General Manager and therefore, he became the successor and assignee for all purpose and had the power to encash the bank guarantee and, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Hindustan Construction (Supra) will not apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 245 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1