<?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>2017 (10) TMI 1626 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306675</link>
    <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is an independent contract and must ordinarily be honoured on demand; pending disputes under the underlying contract do not by themselves justify restraint in Section 9 proceedings. Injunction is available only on strict proof of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or exceptional special equities, and the materials here did not establish any of those exceptions. Full and frank disclosure is required for equitable interim relief, and suppression of material facts weighed against the applicant. The restraint on encashment was therefore refused, leaving the contractual disputes to arbitration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2023 06:44:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1626 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306675</link>
      <description>An unconditional bank guarantee is an independent contract and must ordinarily be honoured on demand; pending disputes under the underlying contract do not by themselves justify restraint in Section 9 proceedings. Injunction is available only on strict proof of egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or exceptional special equities, and the materials here did not establish any of those exceptions. Full and frank disclosure is required for equitable interim relief, and suppression of material facts weighed against the applicant. The restraint on encashment was therefore refused, leaving the contractual disputes to arbitration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>