<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (2) TMI 624 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168303</link>
    <description>Unconditional irrevocable bank guarantees operate as independent contracts and are ordinarily to be honoured according to their terms. Court interference is confined to exceptional cases of clear, egregious fraud or special equities leading to irretrievable injustice; allegations of lack of good faith or oblique purpose are not a separate ground. Applying that principle, the text states that no such fraud was established and that arbitration remained the proper forum for the underlying dispute, so injunction against encashment was unsustainable. It also explains that, in a composite turnkey arrangement governed by a wrap-around agreement, the beneficiary could invoke all guarantees where the contract expressly permitted recovery for breach and the record did not show completed performance barring invocation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 624 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168303</link>
      <description>Unconditional irrevocable bank guarantees operate as independent contracts and are ordinarily to be honoured according to their terms. Court interference is confined to exceptional cases of clear, egregious fraud or special equities leading to irretrievable injustice; allegations of lack of good faith or oblique purpose are not a separate ground. Applying that principle, the text states that no such fraud was established and that arbitration remained the proper forum for the underlying dispute, so injunction against encashment was unsustainable. It also explains that, in a composite turnkey arrangement governed by a wrap-around agreement, the beneficiary could invoke all guarantees where the contract expressly permitted recovery for breach and the record did not show completed performance barring invocation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>