Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Airports Authority Of India Act, 1994
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007
He relied on Himadri Chemical
Industries (supra) in support of the contention that insofar as
the bank guarantees were irrevocable, no injustice can be
alleged, by the encashment of the same. However, in the afore
judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:
Vinitec Electronics Private Limited vs Hcl Infosystems Limited on 2 November, 2007
Thus, the question to be considered firstly is as to whether any
fraud is committed while invoking the guarantee and secondly as
to whether any injustice has been committed. As regards fraud,
even the petitioner has no case that the encashment was
fraudulent. However, the contention raised is with reference to
the commission of "injustice". But for the order dated
21.06.2024 by which a new sole Arbitrator is appointed by this
Court, which was stayed by the Apex Court, the petitioner could
not have raised any contention with respect to "injustice". As
already noticed, by virtue of the encashment of the bank
guarantee in the meantime, I am of the opinion that the
20
W.P(C) No.24021 of 2023
and 7025 of 2025 2025:KER:31609
petitioner is highly prejudiced. To the same effect are the
judgments in Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. (supra), Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board (supra) and Standard
Chartered Bank (supra).
Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board vs Ccl Products (India) Ltd. on 22 July, 2019
Thus, the question to be considered firstly is as to whether any
fraud is committed while invoking the guarantee and secondly as
to whether any injustice has been committed. As regards fraud,
even the petitioner has no case that the encashment was
fraudulent. However, the contention raised is with reference to
the commission of "injustice". But for the order dated
21.06.2024 by which a new sole Arbitrator is appointed by this
Court, which was stayed by the Apex Court, the petitioner could
not have raised any contention with respect to "injustice". As
already noticed, by virtue of the encashment of the bank
guarantee in the meantime, I am of the opinion that the
20
W.P(C) No.24021 of 2023
and 7025 of 2025 2025:KER:31609
petitioner is highly prejudiced. To the same effect are the
judgments in Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. (supra), Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board (supra) and Standard
Chartered Bank (supra).
Standard Chartered Bank vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
Thus, the question to be considered firstly is as to whether any
fraud is committed while invoking the guarantee and secondly as
to whether any injustice has been committed. As regards fraud,
even the petitioner has no case that the encashment was
fraudulent. However, the contention raised is with reference to
the commission of "injustice". But for the order dated
21.06.2024 by which a new sole Arbitrator is appointed by this
Court, which was stayed by the Apex Court, the petitioner could
not have raised any contention with respect to "injustice". As
already noticed, by virtue of the encashment of the bank
guarantee in the meantime, I am of the opinion that the
20
W.P(C) No.24021 of 2023
and 7025 of 2025 2025:KER:31609
petitioner is highly prejudiced. To the same effect are the
judgments in Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. (supra), Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board (supra) and Standard
Chartered Bank (supra).
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
and 7025 of 2025 2025:KER:31609
In ABL International Ltd v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 553],
the Apex Court held that "once State or an instrumentality of the
State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act
fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article
14 of the Constitution of India". The contentions raised by the
petitioner have to be evaluated with reference to the afore
principles. This Court notices that the petitioners filed W.P(C)
No.24021 of 2023 seeking to challenge the steps for encashing
the bank guarantees and an order of stay was also issued. True,
the stay was not extended beyond the period of two weeks from
26.09.2024. However, prior to that, the new sole Arbitrator was
appointed as evidenced by Ext.P11 order dated 21.06.2024.
Therefore, the respondent was aware about the appointment of
the sole Arbitrator. True, they have further challenged Ext.P11
order by filing an SLP before the Apex Court, and the order of
appointment as above was stayed. However, the matter is being
15
W.P(C) No.24021 of 2023
and 7025 of 2025 2025:KER:31609
considered in the SLP filed as above before the Apex Court. In
all fairness, the respondent authority ought to have noticed, but
for the stay order by the Apex Court, the petitioner could have
approached the sole Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act.