Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987
While considering the question of fraud, the Supreme Court mentioned that the observations of Sir John Donaldson MR and Griffiths LJ in Bolivinter Oil SA (supra), were apposite and had also been approved by the Supreme Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (supra).
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 and Another: , the Supreme Court observed that numerous decisions had been rendered by the court over a span of nearly two decades with regard to the principles which the courts must apply while considering the question whether to grant an injunction which has the effect of restraining the effect of bank guarantees.
Section 134 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 5 March, 1992
In Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar and Others: 1992 (2) SCC 330 in paragraph 14 thereof, the Supreme Court held as under:-
State Trading Corpn.Of India Ltd vs Jainsons Clothing Corpn on 14 September, 1994
In State Trading Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court further held as under:-
Hindustan Steel Workersconstruction ... vs G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers)Pvt. Ltd on 13 September, 1995
The court mentioned its earlier decisions in Svenska (supra), Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Maharashtra SEB: , Page 375 Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd: and U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd: and reiterated the principles set down in those cases. The Supreme Court pointed out that one exception to the rule of non-interference with a bank guarantee is fraud and that too established fraud. It further pointed out that the second exception to the rule of granting injunction is the result of irretrievable injury which has to be such a circumstance which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if he ultimately succeeds.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996
The court mentioned its earlier decisions in Svenska (supra), Larsen & Toubro Ltd v. Maharashtra SEB: , Page 375 Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd: and U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd: and reiterated the principles set down in those cases. The Supreme Court pointed out that one exception to the rule of non-interference with a bank guarantee is fraud and that too established fraud. It further pointed out that the second exception to the rule of granting injunction is the result of irretrievable injury which has to be such a circumstance which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself if he ultimately succeeds.
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 1999
In Hindustan Construction Company (supra), however, the court passed an injunction against encashment of a bank guarantee but on the ground that the invocation itself was bad. It was held that in that case, the bank guarantee could be invoked by none except the Chief Engineer and as the invocation had not been done by the Chief Engineer, the same was wholly wrong and the bank was under no obligation to pay the amount covered by the performance guarantee to the Executive Engineer. This case added another dimension in the question of injunctions of a bank guarantee. It provided that where the bank guarantee had been improperly invoked, then, an injunction could be granted from encashment of the same.