Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.81 seconds)
Vikas Laminator Ltd. vs Indian Overseas Bank And Anr. on 9 April, 2003 cites

United Commercial Bank vs Bank Of India And Others on 26 March, 1981

13. On the face of these stipulations and relying upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India, and M/s. Har Prashad & Co. Ltd. vs. Sudershan Steel Mills and Others, , it was held that the invocation letter did not fulfilll the requirements agreed in the bank guarantee for invoking the same and as such this performance bank guarantee had not been validly invoked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 288 - A P Sen - Full Document

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997

17. The law with regard to grant of injunction to restrain realisation of the bank guarantee has been settled through a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts and in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. & Another, , it was held that the Court should be slow in granting injunction restraining realisation of the bank guarantee. There are only two following exceptions to this general:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 870 - Full Document

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

In support of his contention that the invocation of the bank guarantee was not valid, learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , where the Court reiterated the legal position that the terms of the bank guarantee are extremely material and since the bank guarantee represents an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, both the parties would be bound by the terms thereof and the invocation, therefore, will have to be in accordance with the terms of the bank guarantee or else the invocation itself would be bad. It was also held in this case that the bank guarantee could be invoked only in the circumstances referred to in aforesaid clause whereunder the amount would become payable only if the obligations are not fulfillled or there is misappropriation. That being so, the Bank guarantee could not be said to be unconditional or unequivocal in terms so that the employer/State could be said to have had an unfettered right to invoke that guarantee and demand immediate payment thereof from the Bank. Invocation itself being bad High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of injunction, granted by the single Judge, by which the defendants were restrained from invoking the Bank guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 245 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Puri International (P) Ltd. vs National Building Construction Co. ... on 31 March, 1997

Reliance is also placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Puri International (P) Limited vs. National Building Construction Co ltd. & Another, . This Court on the facts of that case held that the bank guarantee was not invoked in accordance with the terms or requirements of the bank guarantee and, therefore, its encashment was not permissible.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1