Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (2.14 seconds)
Felguera Gruas India Private Limited vs Tuticorin Coal Terminal Private ... on 11 January, 2018 cites

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

14. We are afraid that in the face of the law succinctly laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation (supra) and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court referred to earlier, we are unable to accept the wide proposition of law laid down in the foreign judgments cited by Mr. Sorabjee. Whatever may be the law, as to the encashment of bank guarantees in other jurisdictions, when the law in India is clear, settled and without any deviation whatsoever, there is no occasion to rely upon foreign case law." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document

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

10. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first is when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice and a fraud of the beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. The second exception to the general rule of non-intervention is when there are "special equities" in favour of injunction, such as when "irretrievable injury" or "irretrievable injustice" would occur if such an injunction were not granted. The general rule and its exceptions has been reiterated in so many judgments of this Court, that in U.P. State Sigar Corporation vs. Sumac International Ltd., (hereinafter "U.P. State Sugar Corporation") this Court, correctly declared that the law was "settled" .
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next