Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)

General Electric Technical ... vs Punj Sons (P) Ltd. And Another on 7 August, 1991

Ltd. , General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. v. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. (supra) and Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. , in support of his contentions are of no help in the context of the present case. It is true, as already stated supra, the courts have made an exception in the matter of issuing injunction against encashing unconditional bank guarantee in the case where fraud is established or at least prima facie fraud is shown. Since the appellant has failed to establish fraud, its case will not fall in one of the two excepted categories.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 126 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Federal Bank Ltd vs V.M Jog Engineering Ltd. And Ors on 29 September, 2000

9. The law relating to encashment of the bank guarantees and the circumstances under which a court can issue injunction against encashment of bank guarantees has been crystalised by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It is well settled that, the courts ought not to grant injunction restraining the encashment of bank guarantees or letter of credits except on two grounds-(i) fraud and (ii) irretrievable damage. The Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. V. M. Jog Engineering Ltd. [2001] 106 Comp Cas 267, 287; [2001] 1 SCC 663 has held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 122 - M J Rao - Full Document

Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd vs Tehri Hydro Development Corporation ... on 31 July, 1996

Ltd. , General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. v. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. (supra) and Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. , in support of his contentions are of no help in the context of the present case. It is true, as already stated supra, the courts have made an exception in the matter of issuing injunction against encashing unconditional bank guarantee in the case where fraud is established or at least prima facie fraud is shown. Since the appellant has failed to establish fraud, its case will not fall in one of the two excepted categories.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd vs Tarapore & Co. & Anr on 9 July, 1996

13. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore and Co. , is a binding authority to state that the bank guarantee is an independent and distinct contract between the bank and the beneficiary and is not qualified by the underlying transaction and the primary contract between the person at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the beneficiary. In other words, in the case of unconditional bank guarantee, the nature of obligation of the bank is absolute and not dependent upon any dispute or proceeding between the party at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the beneficiary. The Supreme Court in the above case, in paras. 14 and 23 held as follows (pages 354 and 360) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 138 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Hvs Technologies Inc., United States Of ... vs Aeronautical Development Agency ... on 4 April, 2001

15. Further this court in the case of HVS Technologies Inc., United States of America v. Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bangalore [2001] 4 Karn LJ 211 has held that the right of beneficiary of guarantee to recover guaranteed amount cannot be stayed pending arbitration and bank cannot be restrained from honouring its obligation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - D V Kumar - Full Document
1