Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (0.50 seconds)
North Karanpura Transmission Company ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 23 February, 2023 cites

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

20. The Supreme Court observed that both the courts below had committed a jurisdictional error when they failed to take note of the law laid down in Raman Iron Foundry which governed the controversy, and had instead placed reliance on Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110 and U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568 , which laid down general principle relating to bank guarantees; there could be no quarrel with the proposition laid down in those cases; however, every case had to be decided with reference to the facts involved therein; the case at hand was similar on facts with that of Raman Iron Foundry, and hence the law laid down in that case was applicable to this case; the District Judge, having decided the injunction application in the first instance in the appellant's favour, had erred in rejecting the application made by the appellant the second time; the respondents, despite having suffered the injunction order the first time, did not file any appeal against that order; the said order had thus attained finality and was, therefore, binding on the parties; the appellants had made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of injunction against the respondents; they had also made out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour as held in Raman Iron Foundry; and they were, therefore, entitled to claim injunction against the respondent in relation to encashment of the Bank Guarantee. The appeal was allowed, the impugned Order was set aside, in consequence, the injunction application submitted by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was allowed, and injunction was granted in the appellant's favour restraining the respondent from encashing the Bank Guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 385 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd vs Tehri Hydro Development Corporation ... on 31 July, 1996

118. After relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Ansal Engineering Project Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr, U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Mahatma Gandhi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane v. National Heavy Engineering Cooperative Limited & Anr, and Vinitec Electronic Private Limited v. HCL Infosystem Ltd, Adani Agri Page 64 of 71 Order in IA No. 599 of 2022 in Appeal No. 188 of 2022 Fresh v. Mehboob Shariff & Ors, this Tribunal, in Shahpoorji Pallonji Energy (Gujarat) Private Limited-v- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission& Anr., (decision in I.A. No.384 of 2017 in Appeal No.161 of 2017 dated 29.05.2017), held that to avail of the exception of irretrievable injury or special equity, exceptional circumstances which make it impossible for the Guarantor to reimburse himself, if he ultimately succeeds, will have to be decisively established, which the Applicants have not done in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 115 - Full Document

M/S Gangotri Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2016

93. Among the contentions urged on behalf of the Appellant, before this Tribunal in Shapoorji Pallonji Energy (Gujarat) Private Limited, were that the Contract Performance Guarantee was not invocable to realise liquidated damages which can accrue only when there is any proven loss/damage suffered by the Respondent; restraint of such action till final adjudication on merits will not cause any harm to the Respondent since the guarantee continued to be valid; the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Gangotri Enterprises Limited v. Union of India [(2016) 11 SCC 720, is relevant and covers this case; it supports the contention that the sum claimed by the Respondent is pending adjudication and hence is not at present due; and, hence, the Bank Guarantee cannot be invoked.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 93 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Vinitec Electronics Private Limited vs Hcl Infosystems Limited on 2 November, 2007

U.P. Coop. Federation Limited v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174, BSES Limited v. Fenner India Limited, Himadri Chemicals Industries Limited v. Coal Tar Refining Company (2007) 8 SCC 110, Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane v. National Heavy Engineering Coop. Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 470, Vinitec Electronics Private Limited v. HCL Infosystems Limited, Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Limited (2016) 10 SCC 46 and Adani Agri Fresh Limited v. Mahaboob Sharif.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 170 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd vs Coal Tar Refining Company on 7 August, 2007

20. The Supreme Court observed that both the courts below had committed a jurisdictional error when they failed to take note of the law laid down in Raman Iron Foundry which governed the controversy, and had instead placed reliance on Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110 and U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568 , which laid down general principle relating to bank guarantees; there could be no quarrel with the proposition laid down in those cases; however, every case had to be decided with reference to the facts involved therein; the case at hand was similar on facts with that of Raman Iron Foundry, and hence the law laid down in that case was applicable to this case; the District Judge, having decided the injunction application in the first instance in the appellant's favour, had erred in rejecting the application made by the appellant the second time; the respondents, despite having suffered the injunction order the first time, did not file any appeal against that order; the said order had thus attained finality and was, therefore, binding on the parties; the appellants had made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of injunction against the respondents; they had also made out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour as held in Raman Iron Foundry; and they were, therefore, entitled to claim injunction against the respondent in relation to encashment of the Bank Guarantee. The appeal was allowed, the impugned Order was set aside, in consequence, the injunction application submitted by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was allowed, and injunction was granted in the appellant's favour restraining the respondent from encashing the Bank Guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 256 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

80. (iv) Three vessels, which stood berthed off the coast of Kolkata, constituted the subject matter of controversy in the petition, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in THAR CAMPS PVT LTD VS INDUS RIVER CRUISES PVT LTD : 2021 SCC Online Del 3150. The Delhi High Court relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231 wherein it was held that a claim for damages for breach of contract was not a claim for a sum presently due and payable; damages are the compensation which a Court of Law gives to a party for the injury he has sustained and the plaintiff does not get damages or compensation by reason of any existing obligation on the part of the person who has committed the breach; he gets compensation as a result of the fiat of the Court; therefore, it has to be decided by the Court, in the first instance, that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess what that liability is; till that determination, there is no liability at all upon the defendant; and there would not be any debt payable unless the Court determines the liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 380 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. on 18 December, 2019

100. Even after the judgement in Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, (2016) 11 SCC 720, the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. CCL Products (India) Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 669, and Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574, has followed Ansal Engg. Projects Ltd which, as noted hereinabove, followed the long line of judgements of the Supreme Court wherein Courts were cautioned to refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee. It is relevant to note that despite the judgement in Gangotri Enterprises Ltd being brought to its notice, the Supreme Court, in Standard Chartered Bank, followed Ansal Engg. Projects Ltd, and not Gangotri Enterprises Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 56 - I Malhotra - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat Through Chief ... vs Amber Builders on 8 January, 2020

While considering it unnecessary to burden its judgment by referring to all of them, the Supreme Court opined that some of the more recent pronouncements on this point, where the earlier decisions have been considered and reiterated, were Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome [(1994) 1 SCC 502] , Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB [(1995) 6 SCC 68] , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 6 SCC 76] and State of Gujarat v. Amber Builders, (2020) 2 SCC 540. It then held that the general principle, which was laid down by the Supreme Court, had been summarised in U.P. State Sugar Corpn. [(1997) 1 SCC 568] wherein it was held that the law relating to invocation of bank guarantees was well settled; when, in the course of commercial dealings, an unconditional bank guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realize such a bank guarantee in terms Page 26 of 71 Order in IA No. 599 of 2022 in Appeal No. 188 of 2022 thereof irrespective of any pending disputes; the bank giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer; courts should be slow in granting an injunction to restrain realization of such a bank guarantee; courts have carved out only two exceptions ie a fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee which would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee; the second exception relates to cases where allowing the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned; and since, in most cases, payment of money under such a bank guarantee would adversely affect the bank and its customer at whose instance the guarantee is given, the harm or injustice contemplated under this head must be of such an exceptional and irretrievable nature as would override the terms of the guarantee and the adverse effect of such an injunction on commercial dealings in the country.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 12 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015

96. This Tribunal then observed that reliance placed on Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 19 was also misplaced; in that case, the Supreme Court was considering the arbitrary forfeiture of earnest money by the DDA; one of the questions urged before the Supreme Court was whether even if there was a contractual stipulation in favour of the DDA, it could appropriate the earnest money without any loss being caused to it. The Supreme Court considered Section 74 of the Contract Act and inter alia held that damage or loss is sine qua non for the applicability of the Section; this judgment cannot be applied to the present case involving invocation and encashment of Bank Guarantee; the settled principles of law Page 53 of 71 Order in IA No. 599 of 2022 in Appeal No. 188 of 2022 laid down by the Supreme Court will have to be applied to it; and proof of loss or damage is not necessary for invocation and encashment of a Bank Guarantee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 564 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next