Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S National Construction ... on 9 January, 1996 cites

Inacio Martins Deceased Through Lrs vs Narayan Hari Naik And Ors on 7 April, 1993

(Emphasis supplied) This Court in its recent decision, Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik [(1993) 3 SCC 123] has reiterated this proposition. It is, therefore, clear that the dismissal of the Short Cause Suit and the subsequent appeal could not have operated as a bar to Spl. Civil Suit No. 27/83. The plea based on the principle of res judicata fails.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 60 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Mohammad Khalil Khan vs Mahbub Ali Mian on 31 May, 1948

In the case of Mohd. Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Khan [AIR 1949 PC 78 at p.86], the Privy Council laid down the tests for determining whether Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code would apply in a particular situation. The first of these is, "whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation for the former suit." If the answer is in the affirmative, the rule will not apply.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 227 - Full Document

Centax (India) Ltd. vs Vinmar Impex Inc. And Ors. on 19 August, 1986

At this juncture it seems necessary to analysis the law relating to bank guarantees. 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 there 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 their disputes with respect to allegations of breach by resorting to litigation or arbitration as stipulated in the contract. The remedy arising ex-contract is not barred and the cause of action for the same is independent of enforcement of the guarantee. See UCO Bank vs. Bank of India, (1981) 3 SCR 300 at 325; Centax (India) Ltd. V. Vinmar Impex Inc. (1986) 4 SCC 136; and U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. V. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 59 - A P Sen - Full Document

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

At this juncture it seems necessary to analysis the law relating to bank guarantees. 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 there 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 their disputes with respect to allegations of breach by resorting to litigation or arbitration as stipulated in the contract. The remedy arising ex-contract is not barred and the cause of action for the same is independent of enforcement of the guarantee. See UCO Bank vs. Bank of India, (1981) 3 SCR 300 at 325; Centax (India) Ltd. V. Vinmar Impex Inc. (1986) 4 SCC 136; and U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. V. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document

Sidramappa vs Rajashetty And Ors on 9 December, 1969

In Sidramappa v. Rajashetty [AIR 1970 SC 1059 at pp. 1060-61 = (1970) 1 SCC 186 at 189], this Court held that where the cause of action on the basis of which the previous suit was brought, does not form the foundation of the subsequent suit, and in the earlier suit, the plaintiff could not have claimed the relief which he sought in the subsequent suit, the plaintiff's subsequent suit is not barred by order 2 Rule 2. Applying this ruling to the facts of the present case, it is clear that, in the first suit, the appellants could only claim reliefs in respect of Rs.14,12,836/- which was the maximum amount stipulated in the performance guarantee. They could not have claimed reliefs of Rs.1,13,27,298.16 which they did in the second suit on the basis of the contract relating to the work to be performed by the contractor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 178 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1