TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. Whether the communications and circulars issued by the respondent banks and the Indian Banks' Association mandating a minimum claim period of 12 months in bank guarantees are legally valid, particularly in light of the interpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. The proper interpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, especially Exception 3 thereto, and its applicability to the claim period stipulated in bank guarantees.
3. Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given that the impugned communications were issued from Mumbai and addressed to parties in Mumbai.
4. Whether the issue of charging commission and retention of margin money beyond the validity or claim period of the bank guarantee is a contractual matter outside the scope of the writ jurisdiction.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court
Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the principles under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and relevant case law, including the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and the Supreme Court's judgment in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee. The settled position is that if part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the writ petition is maintainable. The doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action must be considered.
Court's Reasoning and Findings: Although the impugned letters and circulars were issued from Mumbai, the decision underlying those communications emanated from the Head Office's Law Division in Delhi. The petitioner's operations in Delhi are affected by these communications, and the alleged infringement of rights occurs in Delhi as well. Thus, a part of the cause of action arose within Delhi's jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
2. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Exception 3
Legal Framework and Historical Background: Section 28 prohibits agreements that absolutely restrict enforcement of rights or limit the time within which rights may be enforced. The original section distinguished between extinguishment of rights and limitation of remedies, holding that agreements extinguishing rights were valid but those limiting remedies were void. This distinction was criticized by the Law Commission of India in its 97th Report (1984) for causing hardship and anomaly, leading to an amendment in 1997 which rendered void agreements extinguishing rights on expiry of a specified period.
Exception 3, inserted in 2013, exempts bank and financial institution guarantees from Section 28's operation if they stipulate a term extinguishing rights or discharging liability on expiry of a specified period not less than one year from the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specified event.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed the historical evolution of Section 28 and the Law Commission's recommendations, emphasizing that Exception 3 relates solely to the period within which a creditor must enforce rights before a court (the enforcement period), and not to the claim period within which a beneficiary may invoke the bank guarantee.
The claim period is a contractual grace period agreed between the creditor and principal debtor, allowing the beneficiary to make a demand on the bank for defaults occurring within the validity period of the guarantee. This claim period may or may not exist and is distinct from the enforcement period governed by Section 28 and the Limitation Act.
The Court relied on the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Explore Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Cats Ltd. & Anr., which held that a clause limiting the right to file suit within a specified claim period is void to the extent it restricts rights under the Limitation Act, but the claim period for invoking the guarantee is a separate contractual matter unaffected by Section 28.
The Court also noted that the respondent bank, in its counter affidavit, admitted that Exception 3 governs the limitation period to institute proceedings before a court and does not govern the claim period.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent bank contended that the claim period must be at least 12 months to avail the protection of Exception 3, and that a claim period shorter than 12 months would be void, exposing the bank to longer limitation periods under the Limitation Act. The bank relied on a Supreme Court judgment which upheld the validity of clauses extinguishing rights after a specified period, but that case did not address claim periods and was distinguished by the Court.
The Court rejected the bank's interpretation as erroneous, holding that the claim period is a contractual term between creditor and principal debtor and not governed by Section 28 or Exception 3.
Conclusion: The Court held that the impugned communications and circulars mandating a minimum 12-month claim period in bank guarantees are based on a misinterpretation of Section 28 and Exception 3, and are therefore illegal and void to the extent they impose such a mandatory claim period.
3. Contractual Nature of Bank Charges and Retention of Margin Money
Legal Framework: The issue of commission charges and retention of margin money by banks beyond the validity or claim period of a bank guarantee is governed by the contractual terms agreed between the bank and the principal debtor.
Court's Reasoning: The Court noted that no relief was sought by the petitioner regarding bank charges or retention of margin money, and that these are commercial decisions of the bank. The Court declined to interfere in these contractual matters in the writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Court did not adjudicate on the issues of commission and margin money, as they were outside the scope of the writ petition.
Significant Holdings
"Exception 3 to section 28 of the Contract Act deals with the rights of a creditor to enforce his rights under the bank guarantee after happening of a specified event. It does not in any manner deal with the claim period within which the beneficiary is entitled to lodge his claim with the bank/guarantor."
"The claim period is a time period contractually agreed between the creditor and the principal debtor which provides a grace period beyond the validity period of the guarantee to make a demand on the bank for a default which has occurred during the validity period. Section 28 of the Contract Act does not deal with the said claim period."
"The impugned communications and circulars issued by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, to the extent that they reproduce erroneous interpretation of Exception 3 to Section 28 of the Contract Act, are clearly vitiated."
"The Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, being the place where the decision was taken and where the petitioner's operations are affected."
"The issue of charging commission and retention of margin money beyond the validity or claim period of the bank guarantee are matters of contract and commercial decision of the bank and are not subject to writ jurisdiction in the present petition."
The Court's final determination was to quash and set aside the impugned communications and circulars to the extent they mandate a minimum 12-month claim period in bank guarantees, holding such a mandate to be contrary to law and based on a misinterpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with all pending applications also disposed.
TaxTMI 
