Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.44 seconds)Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Maharashtra Stateelectricity Board & ... on 13 September, 1995
32. Mr. S.N. Shelat has cited one another authority in case of Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors., II (1996) BC 255 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 334, wherein it has been held that Bank guarantee can be said to be valid till successful completion of trial operation. In that case, Maharashtra Electricity Board admitted that plant after successful trial operation, performance, test, etc. has been taken over. Once the contract has been completed, the injunction from encashing Bank guarantee can be refused. Mr. S.N. Shelat has argued that this cited case is with regard to completion of work under contract for which Bank guarantee had been given. The same analogy of principles will be applicable to this present case on its extreme other end. He has argued that when a concluded enforceable binding agreement has not come into existence between plaintiff and defendant No. 1, certainly defendant No. 1 can be restrained from encashing the Bank guarantee by defendant No. 1.
Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sree Jain Setambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs Phundan Singh And Ors on 9 February, 1999
20. By citing aforesaid legal position with regard to contract by correspondence, Mr. S.N. Shelat has argued that here in this case, no formal instrument of agreement has been reduced into writing, and therefore, whole of the correspondence must be considered. He has argued that the learned Judge of the Trial Court did not take into consideration letters dated 1st April, 2000 and 20th April, 2000 while coming to a conclusion that any concluded and enforceable agreement has come into existence. When the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not considered most material two letters while coming to a conclusion that concluded agreement has come into existence, then certainly this Court can upset the order under appeal even without going into merits of the case. This Court has come across a case of Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid(s) v. Phundan Singh and Ors., II (1999) SLT 94=AIR 1999 SC 2322, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The General Assurance Society Ltd vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 18 October, 1963
24. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellant has also argued that when plaintiff first put its offer by letter dated 29.11.1999, the price offered for TFP was including with an offer for an item of contingent liabilities with regard to JNPT Authority which is at Point 2.2 of Section 7 of the tender (page 82 of the paper book). Mr. Shelat has argued that when plaintiff addressed a letter dated 20th April, 2000 plaintiff modified and revised its earlier offer with regard to contingent liability and put an offer with condition that the amount of contingent liability stated in tender Section 7 on Pages 44 and 45 with regard JNPT, be settled by defendant No. 1 and offer with regard to other contingent liabilities of parties except four parties as stated in letter dated 20.4.2000, be settled by defendant No. 1. There is no reference with regard to these conditions imposed by plaintiff in his letter dated 20th April, 2000 in letter dated 25th May, 2000 of defendant No. 1, and therefore, it appears that defendant No. 1 accepted an offer of plaintiff, in piecemeal by making fractions. Mr. S.N. Shelat has cited an authority of General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1964 SC 892, wherein it has been held as under :
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
28. Mr. S.B. Vakil, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has cited an authority of ITC Limited v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Ors., 1998 (2) SCC 70, and argued that Bank cannot refuse payment except in case of a clear fraud to the knowledge of the Bank or irretrievable injury and while making payment. Bank is not concerned with the principal contract between seller and buyer. He has argued that here in this case, looking to legal position settled in case cited by him no injunction can be granted against defendant No. 1 from encashing Bank guarantee given by defendant No. 2. He has argued that it is not the case of the defendant No. 2 that plaintiff committed any fraud with Bank when plaintiff obtained a Bank guarantee from defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1.
1