<?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>1998 (4) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301302</link>
    <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is ordinarily enforceable independent of disputes under the underlying contract, and restraint is justified only in exceptional cases such as established fraud or irretrievable injustice. On the correspondence and invoices, the Delhi High Court found prima facie special equities in favour of the plaintiff, including that the site was not ready when expected and that the mobilization advance had been substantially used for the defendant&#039;s project. The Court held that encashment would cause irretrievable injustice and that interim injunction against invocation and encashment of the guarantee was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301302</link>
      <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is ordinarily enforceable independent of disputes under the underlying contract, and restraint is justified only in exceptional cases such as established fraud or irretrievable injustice. On the correspondence and invoices, the Delhi High Court found prima facie special equities in favour of the plaintiff, including that the site was not ready when expected and that the mobilization advance had been substantially used for the defendant&#039;s project. The Court held that encashment would cause irretrievable injustice and that interim injunction against invocation and encashment of the guarantee was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>