TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bank guarantee injunction appeal: fraud, expiry date, performance issues addressed. Precedents cited.</h1> <h3>Larsen & Toubro Limited Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors.</h3> The appeal involved issues of injunction against invoking bank guarantees, fraudulent invocation, expiry date concerns, and non-invocation of a ... - Issues Involved:1. Injunction against invoking bank guarantees.2. Fraudulent and dishonest invocation of bank guarantees.3. Invocation of guarantees after their expiry date.4. Performance guarantee not invoked.Summary:Issue 1: Injunction Against Invoking Bank GuaranteesThe appellant sought an injunction u/s 41 of the Arbitration Act to prevent the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) from invoking certain bank guarantees. The High Court dismissed the appellant's prayer for injunction, leading to this appeal.Issue 2: Fraudulent and Dishonest Invocation of Bank GuaranteesThe appellant contended that the bank guarantees were fraudulently and dishonestly invoked by MSEB. The Court reiterated the principle that interference with bank guarantees is only permissible in cases of established fraud and irretrievable injustice, citing precedents like United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and Svenska Handelsbanken v. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome.Issue 3: Invocation of Guarantees After Their Expiry DateThe appellant argued that the guarantees for advance and liquidated damages were invoked after their expiry. The Court found that MSEB had communicated requests for extension before the expiry dates, which served as notice for encashment if not extended.Issue 4: Performance Guarantee Not InvokedThe Court noted that the performance guarantee was not invoked and thus not part of the proceedings.Detailed Judgment:Security Against Advance Payment (Item No. 1)The Court held that the invocation of the guarantee by Standard Chartered Bank for Rs. 5.50 crores was in time and justified, given the ongoing arbitration dispute.Partial Release of Retention Money (Items 3 & 5)- Item 3: The Court found that the guarantee by Citi Bank, N.A. for Rs. 2.72 crores was conditional and had fulfilled its terms upon the successful completion of trial operations and takeover of the plant by MSEB. The Court issued an injunction restraining MSEB and Citi Bank from invoking this guarantee.- Item 5: The guarantee by Standard Chartered Bank for Rs. 1.12 crores was unconditional. The Court found no fraud or irretrievable injustice and upheld the lower court's decision to decline an injunction.Security Against Liquidated Damages (Item No. 4)The guarantee by Bank of Baroda for Rs. 6.13 crores was challenged on the grounds that liquidated damages were not quantified before invocation and that the guarantee was invoked after expiry. The Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the arbitration proceedings would address the delay and liquidated damages issues. The Court also found that the invocation was timely based on prior communication.Conclusion:The appeal was partially allowed, granting an injunction against the invocation of the Citi Bank guarantee for Rs. 2.72 crores. The rest of the lower court's order was affirmed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
