<?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>2020 (4) TMI 876 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289813</link>
    <description>Letters of credit were treated as independent banking obligations, separate from the underlying buyer-seller dispute, so interim restraint on encashment was not warranted. The force majeure clause was available only to the seller and could not be relied on by the buyers, while the contracts were on a cost and freight basis and the seller had already performed by shipping the goods. COVID-19 lockdown and downstream payment difficulties did not, on these facts, justify non-payment, and the materials relied on indicated that steel distribution and related port activity remained essential and not prohibited. Authorities on frustration and supervening impossibility were found inapplicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2020 09:41:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 876 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289813</link>
      <description>Letters of credit were treated as independent banking obligations, separate from the underlying buyer-seller dispute, so interim restraint on encashment was not warranted. The force majeure clause was available only to the seller and could not be relied on by the buyers, while the contracts were on a cost and freight basis and the seller had already performed by shipping the goods. COVID-19 lockdown and downstream payment difficulties did not, on these facts, justify non-payment, and the materials relied on indicated that steel distribution and related port activity remained essential and not prohibited. Authorities on frustration and supervening impossibility were found inapplicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>