Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.40 seconds)
Texmaco Ltd. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 12 May, 1978 cites

State Bank Of India vs The Economic Trading Co. S.A.A. And Ors. on 1 July, 1974

7. The question, is, whether the plaintiff petitioner is entitled to the injunction, as asked for restraining the State Bank of India from making any payment pursuant to the performance guarantee. Reliance in this connection was placed heavily on behalf of the petitioner on the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Economic Trading Corporation, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri on 1 April, 1942

'A contract by which one party promises to save the other from the loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.' The section, in its terms is dependent upon the obligation which arises on the loss caused to the party to be indemnified. The loss may, however, be caused not by actual payment but otherwise and that was recognised by several decisions of Calcutta and Bombay. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in the case of Os-man Jamal & Sons Ltd. v. Gopal Purshottam, AIR 1929 Cal 208, in the case of Chand Bibi v. Santoshkumar Pal, AIR 1933 Cal 641 and in the case of Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan, AIR 1942 Bom 302. But in all these cases the cases were decided upon the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In the instant case, as mentioned hereinbefore, we are not aware of the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In this case, therefore, the indemnity, must be for the loss to be caused by the conduct of the other party. In this case, the facts have, again to be viewed in the light that there is already an injunction against the Bank of Alexandria as well as against the foreign buyer restraining them from receiving any money. That injunction was issued by this Court. The order of injunction has not been varied, or vacated. Therefore, lawfully so long as order of this Court stands restraining the Bank of Alexandria from making any payment or the foreign buyer from receiving any payment, any payment to be made or attempted to be made would be in violation of the order of A. N. Sen, J., dated the 28th November 1967 as mentioned hereinbefore and that order is binding on the Bank of Alexandria until it is set aside or lawfully declared not binding. It would, therefore, be not correct to say that so long as that order stands, the Bank of Alexandria would be under an obligation to pay without contestation the amount agreed to be paid under a letter of credit to the foreign buyer. The unilateral assertion of the Bank of Alexandria that under the Egyptian Law they were under an obligation to pay without contestation would not be decisive of the matter. In a case of this nature the question always arises as to what is the proper law of the contract and the unilateral assertion of the party that under the Egyptian law they were under an obligation to pay where there is already a lawful injunction granted by this Court cannot in our opinion be conclusive of the matter. It would not be right to say that any order made in aid and/or in furtherance of that order would be illegal. An order to prevent circumvention of that order by indirect method would not be illegal. Counsel for the appellant stressed a great deal on international credit and reputation. International credit, however, cannot and should not be sought by such dubious process of permitting circumvention of the lawful order passed by this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are therefore, of the opinion that the same kind of order restraining the State Bank of India from making any payment to the Bank of Alexandria so that the order made by A. N. Sen, J. on the 28th Nov. 1967 may not be defeated, would not be improper, invalid or illegal, but would be on the contrary quite justified."
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Osman Jamal And Sons Ltd. vs Gopal Purshottam on 19 July, 1928

'A contract by which one party promises to save the other from the loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.' The section, in its terms is dependent upon the obligation which arises on the loss caused to the party to be indemnified. The loss may, however, be caused not by actual payment but otherwise and that was recognised by several decisions of Calcutta and Bombay. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in the case of Os-man Jamal & Sons Ltd. v. Gopal Purshottam, AIR 1929 Cal 208, in the case of Chand Bibi v. Santoshkumar Pal, AIR 1933 Cal 641 and in the case of Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan, AIR 1942 Bom 302. But in all these cases the cases were decided upon the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In the instant case, as mentioned hereinbefore, we are not aware of the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In this case, therefore, the indemnity, must be for the loss to be caused by the conduct of the other party. In this case, the facts have, again to be viewed in the light that there is already an injunction against the Bank of Alexandria as well as against the foreign buyer restraining them from receiving any money. That injunction was issued by this Court. The order of injunction has not been varied, or vacated. Therefore, lawfully so long as order of this Court stands restraining the Bank of Alexandria from making any payment or the foreign buyer from receiving any payment, any payment to be made or attempted to be made would be in violation of the order of A. N. Sen, J., dated the 28th November 1967 as mentioned hereinbefore and that order is binding on the Bank of Alexandria until it is set aside or lawfully declared not binding. It would, therefore, be not correct to say that so long as that order stands, the Bank of Alexandria would be under an obligation to pay without contestation the amount agreed to be paid under a letter of credit to the foreign buyer. The unilateral assertion of the Bank of Alexandria that under the Egyptian Law they were under an obligation to pay without contestation would not be decisive of the matter. In a case of this nature the question always arises as to what is the proper law of the contract and the unilateral assertion of the party that under the Egyptian law they were under an obligation to pay where there is already a lawful injunction granted by this Court cannot in our opinion be conclusive of the matter. It would not be right to say that any order made in aid and/or in furtherance of that order would be illegal. An order to prevent circumvention of that order by indirect method would not be illegal. Counsel for the appellant stressed a great deal on international credit and reputation. International credit, however, cannot and should not be sought by such dubious process of permitting circumvention of the lawful order passed by this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are therefore, of the opinion that the same kind of order restraining the State Bank of India from making any payment to the Bank of Alexandria so that the order made by A. N. Sen, J. on the 28th Nov. 1967 may not be defeated, would not be improper, invalid or illegal, but would be on the contrary quite justified."
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chand Bibi And Ors. vs Santoshkumar Pal on 18 January, 1933

'A contract by which one party promises to save the other from the loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.' The section, in its terms is dependent upon the obligation which arises on the loss caused to the party to be indemnified. The loss may, however, be caused not by actual payment but otherwise and that was recognised by several decisions of Calcutta and Bombay. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in the case of Os-man Jamal & Sons Ltd. v. Gopal Purshottam, AIR 1929 Cal 208, in the case of Chand Bibi v. Santoshkumar Pal, AIR 1933 Cal 641 and in the case of Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan, AIR 1942 Bom 302. But in all these cases the cases were decided upon the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In the instant case, as mentioned hereinbefore, we are not aware of the terms and conditions of the indemnity. In this case, therefore, the indemnity, must be for the loss to be caused by the conduct of the other party. In this case, the facts have, again to be viewed in the light that there is already an injunction against the Bank of Alexandria as well as against the foreign buyer restraining them from receiving any money. That injunction was issued by this Court. The order of injunction has not been varied, or vacated. Therefore, lawfully so long as order of this Court stands restraining the Bank of Alexandria from making any payment or the foreign buyer from receiving any payment, any payment to be made or attempted to be made would be in violation of the order of A. N. Sen, J., dated the 28th November 1967 as mentioned hereinbefore and that order is binding on the Bank of Alexandria until it is set aside or lawfully declared not binding. It would, therefore, be not correct to say that so long as that order stands, the Bank of Alexandria would be under an obligation to pay without contestation the amount agreed to be paid under a letter of credit to the foreign buyer. The unilateral assertion of the Bank of Alexandria that under the Egyptian Law they were under an obligation to pay without contestation would not be decisive of the matter. In a case of this nature the question always arises as to what is the proper law of the contract and the unilateral assertion of the party that under the Egyptian law they were under an obligation to pay where there is already a lawful injunction granted by this Court cannot in our opinion be conclusive of the matter. It would not be right to say that any order made in aid and/or in furtherance of that order would be illegal. An order to prevent circumvention of that order by indirect method would not be illegal. Counsel for the appellant stressed a great deal on international credit and reputation. International credit, however, cannot and should not be sought by such dubious process of permitting circumvention of the lawful order passed by this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are therefore, of the opinion that the same kind of order restraining the State Bank of India from making any payment to the Bank of Alexandria so that the order made by A. N. Sen, J. on the 28th Nov. 1967 may not be defeated, would not be improper, invalid or illegal, but would be on the contrary quite justified."
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1