https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198541 Delhi High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed where bank guarantees and extensions were addressed to Delhi, payment was not confined to an exclusive place, and part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through invocation and refusal. It further held that the recovery suit under the guarantees was within limitation because the period during which enforcement was stayed by injunction had to be excluded; alleged balance-sheet acknowledgments were not proved as the sole basis for limitation. The guarantees were found to have been validly invoked in accordance with their terms, no established fraud was shown, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the guaranteed amounts with interest and costs. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:27:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198541 Delhi High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed where bank guarantees and extensions were addressed to Delhi, payment was not confined to an exclusive place, and part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through invocation and refusal. It further held that the recovery suit under the guarantees was within limitation because the period during which enforcement was stayed by injunction had to be excluded; alleged balance-sheet acknowledgments were not proved as the sole basis for limitation. The guarantees were found to have been validly invoked in accordance with their terms, no established fraud was shown, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the guaranteed amounts with interest and costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198541