<?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 (8) TMI 514 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776327</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a bank guarantee nearly seven years after its expiry and renewal period. The petitioner failed to lodge any claim within the validity period, rendering the belated enforcement attempt invalid. The court held that the guarantee clauses, read in full, do not support a continuing guarantee beyond the stipulated period. The petition was found meritless, and no writ petition is ordinarily entertained for such delayed enforcement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 514 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776327</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petition seeking enforcement of a bank guarantee nearly seven years after its expiry and renewal period. The petitioner failed to lodge any claim within the validity period, rendering the belated enforcement attempt invalid. The court held that the guarantee clauses, read in full, do not support a continuing guarantee beyond the stipulated period. The petition was found meritless, and no writ petition is ordinarily entertained for such delayed enforcement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>