Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007
43. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject in Himadri
Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110,
a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime
Board v. Larsen & Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.,
(2016) 10 SCC 46 has laid down the principles for grant or refusal for
invocation of bank guarantee or a letter of credit. The relevant paragraph
is as under:
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
46. As regards the exceptional ground of fraud, the following
observations of Sir John Donaldson, M.R. in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase
Manhattan Bank have been approved by the Supreme Court in an earlier
decision at U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and
Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174 as under:
Standard Chartered Bank vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
47. While explaining and approving the ruling in Itek Corpn. v. First
National Bank of Boston, 566 Fed Supp 1210, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn.
Ltd., (Supra) held that irretrievable injury, which is the second exception
to the rule against granting of injunctions when unconditional bank
guarantees are sought to be realised, must be of the kind which was the
subject-matter of the decision in the Itek Corpn. Case (Supra). To avail
this exception, exceptional circumstances, which make it impossible for
the guarantor to reimburse himself if he ultimately succeeds, will have to
be decisively established. A mere apprehension that the other party will
not be able to pay, is not enough.
Tecnimont Private Limited & Anr. vs Ongc Petro Additions Limitedm on 20 June, 2020
32. It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench's decision in
Tecnimont (Supra) was subsequently modified by a Division Bench of
this Court by way of its order dated 24.06.2020 in
FAO(OS)(COMM)72/2020, declaring as under:
Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd vs Tehri Hydro Development Corporation ... on 31 July, 1996
40. The law relating to invocation of bank guarantees with the
consistent line of precedents is well settled and a three-Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ansal Engg. Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro
Development Corpn. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 450 held as under:
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. on 4 April, 2013
In Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar [Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar,
(1999) 8 SCC 436], a two-Judge Bench of this Court formulated
the condition upon which the invocation of the bank guarantee
depends in the following terms: (SCC p. 442, para 9)
"9. What is important, therefore, is that the bank
guarantee should be in unequivocal terms,
unconditional and recite that the amount would be
paid without demur or objection and irrespective of
any dispute that might have cropped up or might have
been pending between the beneficiary under the bank
guarantee or the person on whose behalf the guarantee
was furnished. The terms of the bank guarantee are,
therefore, extremely material. Since the bank
guarantee represents an independent contract between
the bank and the beneficiary, both the parties would be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 39/2020 Page 16 of 27
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:13.02.2023
18:32:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001006
bound by the terms thereof. The invocation, therefore,
will have to be in accordance with the terms of the
bank guarantee, or else, the invocation itself would be
bad."
Gujarat Maritime Board vs L&T; Infrastructure Development ... on 28 September, 2016
43. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject in Himadri
Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110,
a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Maritime
Board v. Larsen & Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd.,
(2016) 10 SCC 46 has laid down the principles for grant or refusal for
invocation of bank guarantee or a letter of credit. The relevant paragraph
is as under: