Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Citibank N.A. vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd. on 17 May, 1982
(1) Citibank N.A., New Delhi Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, : A Single Judge of this Court opined (vide para 57) "........ With utmost respect, therefore, I would follow the Privy Council and the Madras Judgments and hold that the rights conferred on the surety under Sections 133, 135 or 141 could be waived by specific agreement in the deed of guarantee. As a matter of fact, such an agreement would amount to consent within the meaning of those sections."
M/S. Hindustan Steel Works ... vs M/S. Tarapore & Co. Madras on 17 January, 1989
32. A matter very much akin to the matter in hand came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., (supra) (vide para 14) "........Whether the bank guarantee is towards security deposit or mobilisation advance or working funds or for due performance of the contract if the same is un-conditional and if there is a stipulation in the bank guarantee that the bank should pay on demand without a demur and that the beneficiary shall be the sole Judge not only on the question of breach of contract but also with respect to the amount of loss or damages, the obligation of the bank would remain the same and that obligation has to be discharged in the manner provided in the bank guarantee.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996
27. The Supreme Court while dealing with the question of irretrievable injury opined (vide para 14)" On the question of irretrievable injury which is the second exception to the rule against granting of injunctions when unconditional bank guarantees are sought to be realised the Court said in the above case that the irretrievable injury must be of the kind which was the subject matter of the decision in the Itek Corporation case.......".
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
"........To avail of the exception, therefore, exceptional circumstances which make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if he ultimately succeeds, will have to be decisively established. Clearly, a mere apprehension that the other party will not be able to pay, is not enough........". To the same effect are the observations as reported in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. Vs. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., JT 1995 (7) S.C. 2 and Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others, .
Hindustan Steel Workersconstruction ... vs G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers)Pvt. Ltd on 13 September, 1995
"........To avail of the exception, therefore, exceptional circumstances which make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if he ultimately succeeds, will have to be decisively established. Clearly, a mere apprehension that the other party will not be able to pay, is not enough........". To the same effect are the observations as reported in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. Vs. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd., JT 1995 (7) S.C. 2 and Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others, .
General Electric Technical ... vs Punj Sons (P) Ltd. And Another on 7 August, 1991
In General Electric Technical Services Company Inc. Vs. Punj Sons(P) Ltd., , while dealing with a case of bank guarantee given for securing mobilisation advance it has been held that the right of a contractor to recover certain amounts under running bills would have no relevance to the liability of the bank under the guarantee given by it."