https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751128 The Bombay HC held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited and cannot adjudicate inter se liability issues between parties regarding demerger terms or bank guarantee obligations. The court emphasized that bank guarantees constitute independent contracts between banks and beneficiaries, and injunctions against invocation require appropriate contractual proceedings applying established principles. Since adjudication proceedings were remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, the court kept all contentions open for determination by the original authority, including which party must furnish the bank guarantee. The court directed the petitioner to extend the bank guarantee for one month pending the Assistant Commissioner's decision on remanded issues. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751128 The Bombay HC held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited and cannot adjudicate inter se liability issues between parties regarding demerger terms or bank guarantee obligations. The court emphasized that bank guarantees constitute independent contracts between banks and beneficiaries, and injunctions against invocation require appropriate contractual proceedings applying established principles. Since adjudication proceedings were remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, the court kept all contentions open for determination by the original authority, including which party must furnish the bank guarantee. The court directed the petitioner to extend the bank guarantee for one month pending the Assistant Commissioner's decision on remanded issues. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751128