Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.79 seconds)Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 1999
Inasmuch as we
have held that the bank guarantee is an
unconditional bank guarantee, the case of
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
is of no avail to the appellant."
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Shri Kusumanchi Kameshwara Rao & Anr on 28 November, 1996
"It is obvious that when such guarantee bonds
are reduced to writing the express terms of this
writing containing the guarantee bond would be
the repository of the obligations of the guarantor
flowing from the surety bond. As per Sections 91
and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 no
evidence dehors the terms of the agreement,
whether documentary or oral, can be led by the
parties to get out of the express terms thereof.
Whether the express terms of the guarantee bond
give rise to the contract of guarantee sought to be
enforced will be the only limited enquiry which
could be gone into by the courts while deciding the
rights and obligations flowing from such contract
of guarantee which is a tripartite contract between
the creditor, principal debtor and the surety. Once
such suretyship agreement is established on the
clear terms of the bond then as laid down by the
aforesaid decisions of this Court no latitude can be
given to the contracting party, namely, the surety
or even the principal debtor to enable them to get
out of the obligations of the suretyship agreement
flowing from such contract, except in exceptional
circumstances as indicated in these decisions."
Daewoo Motors India Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 February, 2003
We may now consider the decision in Daewoo Motors India Ltd. v.
Union of India and Others [(2003) 4 SCC 690]. The bank guarantee
involved therein inter alia read as under:
S. Chattanatha Karayalar vs The Central Bank Of India And Others on 9 March, 1965
The decision of this Court in S. Chattanatha Karayalar (supra) on
which reliance was placed by Mr. Naphade is not applicable to the fact of
the present case. Therein, the construction of a promissory note executed in
favour of a Bank was in question. The said promissory note was construed
in the context of the letters and the hypothecation agreement executed by the
borrower on the basis whereof it was held that the status of the Appellant
therein with regard to the overdraft amount was that of a surety and not that
of a co-applicant. In the said decision itself, Ramaswami, J. opined:
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
[See also Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works (P) Ltd. and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450] and M/s. BSES Ltd. (Now
Reliance Energy Ltd.) v. M/s. Fenner India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2006 (2) SC 192]
However, in this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the
document in question constitutes a contract of indemnity and not an absolute
or unconditional bank guarantee. The High Court, therefore, erred in
construing the same to be an unconditional and absolute bank guarantee.
The State Bank Of India Act, 1955
Section 124 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Federal Bank Ltd vs V.M Jog Engineering Ltd. And Ors on 29 September, 2000
In an
instructive judgment, M. Jagannadha Rao, J. in Federal Bank Ltd. v. V.M.
Jog Engineering Ltd. and Others [(2001) 1 SCC 663] referring to Uniform
Commercial Practice of Documentary Credits and a catena of decisions of
this Court as also the English Courts, dealt with a case where a fraud was
alleged and observed: