<?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>2025 (5) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770296</link>
    <description>The SC disposed of an appeal concerning encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee. The HC had restrained the appellants from encashing the guarantee pending arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The SC upheld the HC&#039;s interim order, emphasizing that bank guarantees are independent contracts generally enforceable without regard to underlying disputes, except in cases of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice. The Court directed that the guarantee remain restrained until disposal of the Section 9 petition, with the Commercial Court to decide within eight weeks. The SC recognized that interim restraint orders are permissible to protect arbitration proceedings&#039; efficacy while maintaining the guarantee&#039;s validity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 09:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770296</link>
      <description>The SC disposed of an appeal concerning encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee. The HC had restrained the appellants from encashing the guarantee pending arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The SC upheld the HC&#039;s interim order, emphasizing that bank guarantees are independent contracts generally enforceable without regard to underlying disputes, except in cases of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice. The Court directed that the guarantee remain restrained until disposal of the Section 9 petition, with the Commercial Court to decide within eight weeks. The SC recognized that interim restraint orders are permissible to protect arbitration proceedings&#039; efficacy while maintaining the guarantee&#039;s validity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>