<?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>2000 (7) TMI 976 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184745</link>
    <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is ordinarily enforceable on demand because it is independent of the underlying contract. Judicial restraint applies except in established fraud or irretrievable injustice supported by special equities, and pending arbitration does not dilute enforcement. An injunction affecting the counter-guarantee does not provide a defence to the beneficiary&#039;s claim, and the Foreign Exchange Manual did not bar payment to the resident beneficiary merely because reimbursement from the overseas bank was disputed. Unconditional leave to defend was therefore not justified, and the defence based on the guarantee dispute was untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:38:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 976 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184745</link>
      <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is ordinarily enforceable on demand because it is independent of the underlying contract. Judicial restraint applies except in established fraud or irretrievable injustice supported by special equities, and pending arbitration does not dilute enforcement. An injunction affecting the counter-guarantee does not provide a defence to the beneficiary&#039;s claim, and the Foreign Exchange Manual did not bar payment to the resident beneficiary merely because reimbursement from the overseas bank was disputed. Unconditional leave to defend was therefore not justified, and the defence based on the guarantee dispute was untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>