Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.94 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
Section 18 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
National Thermal Powercorporation Ltd vs M/S Flowmore Private Ltd.And Anr on 8 May, 1995
Our attention was invited to a number of decisions on
this issue -- among them, to Larsen & Turbro Ltd. v.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors. (1995 [6] SCC 58)
and Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal
& Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. (1995 [6] SCC 76) as also to
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmore Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. (1995 [4] SCC 515). The latest decision is in
the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. M/s National
Construction Company, Bombay & Anr. (JT 1996 [1] SC 156)
where this Court has summed up the position by stating, "The
rule is well established that a bank issuing a guarantee is
not concerned with the underlying contract between the
parties to the contract. The duty of the bank under a
performance guarantee is created by the document itself.
Once the documents are in order the bank giving the
guarantee must honour the same and make payment ordinarily
unless their is an allegation of fraud or the like. The
courts will not interfere directly or indirectly to withhold
payment, otherwise trust in commerce internal and
international would be irreparably damaged. But that does
not mean that the parties to the underlying contract cannot
settle the disputes with respect to allegations of breach by
resorting to litigation or arbitration as stipulated in the
contract. The remedy arising ex-contractu is not barred and
the cause of action for the same is independent of
enforcement of the guarantee."
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd vs Tarapore & Co. & Anr on 9 July, 1996
The other recent decision is
in Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co.
& Anr. (JT 1996 [6] SC 295).
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
On the question of fraud
this Court confirmed the observations made in the case of
U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (supra) and stated that the
fraud must be that of the beneficiary, and not the fraud of
anyone else.
Section 25 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
1