<?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>1987 (11) TMI 375 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168723</link>
    <description>An unconditional performance bank guarantee payable on demand must be honoured according to its terms, because it is an independent and autonomous commitment distinct from the underlying contract. Courts will ordinarily not restrain invocation or encashment merely because performance disputes, delay, or defective work are alleged. Interference is justified only in exceptional cases of established fraud of an egregious nature known to the bank, or where irretrievable injustice creates special equities. A restraint order that would prevent honouring the guarantee cannot be sustained simply because proceedings are framed against the beneficiary rather than the bank; the injunction was therefore set aside and refusal of injunction restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 375 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168723</link>
      <description>An unconditional performance bank guarantee payable on demand must be honoured according to its terms, because it is an independent and autonomous commitment distinct from the underlying contract. Courts will ordinarily not restrain invocation or encashment merely because performance disputes, delay, or defective work are alleged. Interference is justified only in exceptional cases of established fraud of an egregious nature known to the bank, or where irretrievable injustice creates special equities. A restraint order that would prevent honouring the guarantee cannot be sustained simply because proceedings are framed against the beneficiary rather than the bank; the injunction was therefore set aside and refusal of injunction restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>