Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.25 seconds)
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... vs Of on 5 August, 2015 cites

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

there are special equities in favour of injunction, such as when irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice would occur if such an injunction were not granted. The general rule and its exceptions has been reiterated in so many judgments of this court, that in U.P.Sugar Corpn. vs. Sumac International Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 568 (hereinafter U.P.State Sugar Corpn) this Court, correctly declare that the law was of settled."
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.Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174, which rt was the case of works contract where the performance guarantee given under the contract was sought to be invoked, the Hon'ble Supreme 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

Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007

4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:33 :::HCHP 12 Refining Company AIR 2007 SC 2798; and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 256 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S National Construction ... on 9 January, 1996

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome, [1994] 1 SCC 502; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, [1995] 6 SCC 68; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd., [1995] 6 SCC 76; National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmeore (P) Ltd., [1995] 4 SCC 515; State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., [1996] 1 SCC 735; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co., [1996] 5 SCC 34 as also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:33 :::HCHP 5 in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., [1997] 1 SCC 568, the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 142 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Steel Works ... vs M/S. Tarapore & Co. Madras on 17 January, 1989

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome, [1994] 1 SCC 502; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, [1995] 6 SCC 68; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd., [1995] 6 SCC 76; National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmeore (P) Ltd., [1995] 4 SCC 515; State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., [1996] 1 SCC 735; Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co., [1996] 5 SCC 34 as also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:33 :::HCHP 5 in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., [1997] 1 SCC 568, the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 71 - S S Quadri - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next