Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Madhucn Projects Ltd. vs National Highways Authority Of India & ... on 30 November, 2019 cites

U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996

10. There are, however, two exceptions to this Rule. The first is when there is a clear fraud of which the Bank has notice and a fraud of the beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. The second exception to the general rule of non- intervention is when there are 'special equities' in favour of injunction, such as when 'irretrievable injury' or 'irretrievable injustice' would occur if such an injunction were not granted. The general rule and its exceptions has been reiterated in so many judgments of this Court, that in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 1999

performance by the petitioner and once the contract is terminated, there is no question of any performance of the contract by the petitioner. That apart, he stated that despite clear obligation in the contract under clause 23.6.2, requiring NHAI to return the bank guarantees and NHAI failing to do so cannot be allowed to use the device of termination to invoke the bank guarantees. In substance, it was his plea that the invocation of the bank guarantees by NHAI is mala fide and amounts to fraud. That apart, he also stated that irretrievable harm or injury or injustice of such nature shall be caused to the petitioner that would not leave the petitioner with any legal remedy adequate to compensate its injuries as even the realization or recovery of the amount which is reflected in the said bank guarantees, by the petitioner from the respondent NHAI in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the arbitration, would not be sufficient. Further, existence of special equities in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent are made out in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Krishnan has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company vs. State of Bihar 1999 (8) SCC 436 in support of his submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 245 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987

The fraud must be of an egregious nature such as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. While coming to a conclusion as to what constitutes fraud, this court in the above case quoted with approval the observations of Sir John Donaldson, M.R. in Bolivinter Oil SA V/s. Chase Manhattan Bank (1984) 1 All ER 351 at p. 352 g-h which is as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document
1