https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278885 SC affirmed HC's refusal to enjoin invocation of a bank guarantee under s.41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, holding the guarantee to be an independent, irrevocable contract between bank and beneficiary. The court ruled the bank's obligation to pay on demand is absolute and not subordinated to disputes in the underlying contract, and that judicial interference is permissible only on strong proof of fraud or special equity. Absent such evidence, enforcement must be allowed and disputes over the main transaction resolved separately. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278885 SC affirmed HC's refusal to enjoin invocation of a bank guarantee under s.41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, holding the guarantee to be an independent, irrevocable contract between bank and beneficiary. The court ruled the bank's obligation to pay on demand is absolute and not subordinated to disputes in the underlying contract, and that judicial interference is permissible only on strong proof of fraud or special equity. Absent such evidence, enforcement must be allowed and disputes over the main transaction resolved separately. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278885