Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.59 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
The Apex Court relied on
the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation
(supra), where the Apex Court held that the Bank is not concerned in the
least with the relations between the supplier and the customer and nor with
the question whether the supplier has performed his contractual obligations
and is in default or not. The Bank must pay according to the tenor of its
guarantee, on demand, without proof or condition.
Canara Bank vs N.G. Subbaraya Setty on 20 April, 2018
In view of the law laid down in the said judgment, it is not open to the
petitioner to argue that the law laid down in Nusli Neville Wadia(supra) and
Canara Bank (supra), Fuerst Day Lawson(supra), Makhija Construction
& Engg Pvt Ltd (supra) would enure to its advantage.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem
Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450, Supreme
Court reiterated this law as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gujarat Maritime Board vs L&T; Infrastructure Development ... on 28 September, 2016
The Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Maritime (supra) has
clearly held that the BG is a separate contract and is not qualified by the
contract or performance of the obligation. The existence of any dispute
between the parties to the contract cannot be a ground for issuing an
injunction to restrain enforcement of the BGs.
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vinitec Electronics Private Limited vs Hcl Infosystems Limited on 2 November, 2007
In Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.,
(2008) 1 SCC 544, the Supreme Court after relying upon
various earlier judgments of the Court reiterated that the
allegation with regard to the alleged breach of a contract by
the respondent is not a plea of fraud of a egregious nature so as
to vitiate the entire transaction. Paragraphs 24 to 28 of the
Judgment are quoted herein below: