<?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>2007 (7) TMI 659 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184733</link>
    <description>An unconditional bank guarantee must be honoured on demand where its terms require payment without demur and make the beneficiary the sole judge of default. Reference to the underlying contract does not convert such a guarantee into a conditional one, and disputes under that contract do not suspend the bank&#039;s independent obligation. Injunction against encashment is available only in exceptional cases of established fraud or irretrievable injury; absent such pleaded and proved grounds, restraint is unsustainable. The guarantee was therefore treated as invocable, and judicial interference with its encashment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 659 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184733</link>
      <description>An unconditional bank guarantee must be honoured on demand where its terms require payment without demur and make the beneficiary the sole judge of default. Reference to the underlying contract does not convert such a guarantee into a conditional one, and disputes under that contract do not suspend the bank&#039;s independent obligation. Injunction against encashment is available only in exceptional cases of established fraud or irretrievable injury; absent such pleaded and proved grounds, restraint is unsustainable. The guarantee was therefore treated as invocable, and judicial interference with its encashment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>