Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.39 seconds)
Mytrah Vayu (Brahamputra) Private ... vs M/S. Solar Energy Corporation Of India ... on 18 March, 2024 cites

Standard Chartered Bank vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. on 18 December, 2019

(Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574; Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 436). Invocation of a bank guarantee does not depend on termination of the underlying I.A. No. 83/2024 IN A. No. 29/2024 Page 71 of 75 contract. The bank guarantee is a separate contract, and is not qualified by the contract on performance of obligations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 56 - I Malhotra - Full Document

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

735). Encashment of the amount specified in the bank guarantee does not depend upon the result of the decision in the dispute between the parties, in case of a breach. (Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 450). None of the contentions raised by learned Counsel on both sides, on the merits of the order under appeal including those referred to herein above, have any bearing on the contract of bank guarantee between the bank and the 1st Respondent-SECI.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

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

To avail of this exception, therefore, exceptional circumstances which make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if they ultimately succeed, will have to be decisively established. Clearly, a mere apprehension that the other party will not be able to pay, is not enough. In Itek Corporation. v. First National Bank of Boston, (566 Fed Supp 1210), there was certainty on this issue. (Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineerings Works (P) Ltd.; U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568; ITD Cementation India Ltd. v. Reliance Infrastructure Limited 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 198).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Gujarat Maritime Board vs L&T; Infrastructure Development ... on 28 September, 2016

Whether the action of the beneficiary is legal and proper and whether, on the basis of such a decision, the bank guarantee could have been invoked, are not matters of inquiry. Between the Bank and the beneficiary, the moment there is a written demand for invoking the bank guarantee, the Bank is bound to honour the payment under the guarantee. (Gujarat Maritime Board v. L&T Infrastructure I.A. No. 83/2024 IN A. No. 29/2024 Page 72 of 75 Development Projects Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 46). If the bank guarantee furnished is unconditional and irrevocable, the person, in whose favour the guarantee is furnished by the bank, cannot be prevented by way of an injunction from enforcing the guarantee on the pretext that the condition for enforcing the bank guarantee, in terms of the underlying transaction between the parties, has not been fulfilled. The appellant cannot, merely because a dispute exists in terms of the underlying transaction, prevent SECI from enforcing the bank guarantee, as the exceptions do not apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007

After referring to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court in Ansal Engg. Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 450; Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574; SBI v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 293; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110; Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen & Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 46; the Delhi High Court held that it was evident from the aforesaid judgements that Courts should be slow in granting an injunction to restrain realization of a bank guarantee; existence of a dispute between the parties I.A. No. 83/2024 IN A. No. 29/2024 Page 58 of 75 to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to restrain the enforcement of bank guarantees; Courts have carved out only two exceptions, a fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee is the first exception whereas the second exception is that allowing the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned; in Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., the Supreme Court 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; 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; and mere apprehension that the other party will not be. able to pay, is not enough; since in most cases payment of money under such a bank guarantee would adversely affect the bank and its customer at whose instance the guarantee is given, the harm or injustice contemplated under this head must be of such an exceptional and irretrievable nature as would override the terms of the guarantee and the adverse effect of such an injunction on commercial dealings in the country; the two grounds are not necessarily connected, though both may coexist in some cases; and there is a third exception, being that of special equities operating in favour of the party against whom the bank guarantee is being sought to be invoked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 256 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next