<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1866 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297946</link>
    <description>A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, so its invocation must be honoured according to its terms and cannot be restrained merely because a dispute exists in the underlying transaction. Judicial or tribunal interference is justified only if fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities is shown. On the facts, the demand under the guarantees was required to be honoured on invocation, and the bank was not concerned with the underlying compliance dispute. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in setting aside the invocation or directing refund, and the invocation was held valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2021 08:32:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1866 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297946</link>
      <description>A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, so its invocation must be honoured according to its terms and cannot be restrained merely because a dispute exists in the underlying transaction. Judicial or tribunal interference is justified only if fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities is shown. On the facts, the demand under the guarantees was required to be honoured on invocation, and the bank was not concerned with the underlying compliance dispute. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in setting aside the invocation or directing refund, and the invocation was held valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>