<?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>1996 (7) TMI 593 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288604</link>
    <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is an independent contract, and the bank must honour it on demand without demur. Pending disputes under the underlying contract, including arbitration, a counter-claim, or unresolved questions of breach and loss, do not by themselves justify an injunction against invocation. Court interference is available only in exceptional cases such as established fraud or irretrievable injustice. On the facts discussed, the pleaded disputes and pending arbitration did not amount to special equities, and no sufficient material showed fraud or irretrievable injustice. The restraint on encashment was therefore not sustainable, and invocation of the guarantees could not be blocked on the basis of the underlying contractual controversy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:11:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 593 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288604</link>
      <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is an independent contract, and the bank must honour it on demand without demur. Pending disputes under the underlying contract, including arbitration, a counter-claim, or unresolved questions of breach and loss, do not by themselves justify an injunction against invocation. Court interference is available only in exceptional cases such as established fraud or irretrievable injustice. On the facts discussed, the pleaded disputes and pending arbitration did not amount to special equities, and no sufficient material showed fraud or irretrievable injustice. The restraint on encashment was therefore not sustainable, and invocation of the guarantees could not be blocked on the basis of the underlying contractual controversy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>