<?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>1989 (12) TMI 358 - Punjab And Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274774</link>
    <description>The revision petition was allowed, and the Corporation was entitled to enforce the Bank guarantee. The Court held that the Bank guarantee constituted an independent contract between the Bank and the Corporation, imposing an absolute obligation on the Bank to pay the amount on demand. The Contractor&#039;s attempt to restrain the Bank from releasing the guaranteed amount to the Corporation was rejected, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:53:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 358 - Punjab And Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274774</link>
      <description>The revision petition was allowed, and the Corporation was entitled to enforce the Bank guarantee. The Court held that the Bank guarantee constituted an independent contract between the Bank and the Corporation, imposing an absolute obligation on the Bank to pay the amount on demand. The Contractor&#039;s attempt to restrain the Bank from releasing the guaranteed amount to the Corporation was rejected, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>