SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 908

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Jainsons Clothing Corporation and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3586 of 1986, D/-14-9-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R.K. Joshi, Mr. S. K. Jain, Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Mr. P. R. Jain and Mr. K. K. Gogna, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. Arun Jaitley, 2780 Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Karol, Mr. M.V. Goswami and Mr. Vibha Makhija, Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.P.Dhamija, ARUN JAITLEY, B.DUTTA, K.K.GUPTA, M.V.GOSWAMY, P.R.JAIN, R.K.Joshi, S.K.JAIN, SANJAY KAPOOR, VIBHA DATTA MAKHIJA

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 - Rules 1 and 2 - Foreign Buyers - Prima Facie Case of Fraud - Contract Envisages Execution of a Bank Guarantee - Due Performance of Contract - Appellant had entered into a contract with Abu Dhabi Municipality, Abu Dhabi for supply of basmati rice - It in turn had entered into an agreement with respondent for supply and in case of necessity another at option of STC, for shipment, of B-Grade, basmati rice to foreign buyer M/s. Abu Dhabi Municipality, Abu Dhabi - In clause 17 of this contract envisages execution of a bank guarantee by the respondent for due performance of contract - Supplier shall within three days of signing of this contract furnish to the STC a Bank Guarantee from a scheduled bank for an amount which is equivalent to 5% value of contract as per the pro forma attached hereto as Annexure III for performance of its obligations under this contract and the export contract - Bank Guarantee should be made valid - In event of suppliers failure to perform any of its obligations under Back-to-Back contract and/or the export contract, STC shall without prejudice have right to claim eventual damages, be entitled to invoke Bank Guarantees and forfeit amount realised - Suppliers liability and on account of their failure to fulfill their obligations will not be restricted up to value of the Bank Guarantee to be furnished by supplier – Held, There is triable issue strong prima facie case of fraud or irretrievable injury and balance of convenience is in favour of issuing injunction to prevent irremediable injury - Court should normally insist upon enforcement of bank guarantee and the court should not interfere with the enforcement of the contract of guarantee unless there is a specific plea of fraud or special equities in favour of plaintiff - He must necessarily plead and produce all the necessary evidence in proof of the fraud in execution of the contract of the guarantee, but not the contract either of original contract or any of subsequent events that may happen as a ground for fraud - Court directed the respondent to deposit the amount in the Registry and the Registry was directed to keep the amount in fixed deposit which would earn interest. Since the amount has already been deposited and it is earning interest, it is open to the appellant to withdraw the same from Registry - Appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT

The appellant had entered into a contract with Abu Dhabi Municipality, Abu Dhabi for supply of 7,500 M.T. of B Grade basmati rice. It in turn had entered into an agreement with the respondent on April 20, 1985 for supply of 3000 M.T. and in case of necessity another 1500 M.T. at the option of the STC, for shipment, of the B-Grade, basmati rice to foreign buyer M/s. Abu Dhabi Municipality, Abu Dhabi. In clause 17 of this contract envisages execution of a bank guarantee by the respondent for due performance of the contract, which reads thus:

17. Bank Guarantee - "The supplier shall within three days of the signing of this contract furnish to the STC a Bank Guarantee from a scheduled bank for an amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- (Rupees Eleven lacs seventy thousand only) which is equivalent to 5% value of the contract as per the pro forma attached hereto as Annexure III for the performance of its obligations under this contract and the export contract. The Bank Guarantee should be made valid up to 22nd July 1985. In the event of suppliers failure to perform any of its obligations under the Back-to-Back contract and/or the export contract, STC shall without prejudice have the right to claim eventual damages, be entitled to invoke the Bank Guarantees and forfeit the amount realised thereunder. Suppliers liability and on account of their failure to fulfil their obligations will not be restricted up to the value of the Bank Guarantee to be furnished by supplier."

In furtherance thereof, the respondent had executed the contract of guarantee of even date, namely, April 20, 1985 in the following manner:

"That the Bank hereby irrevocably and unconditionally guarantee to the Corporation that in the event of any failure/ default for whatever reason on the part of M/s. Jainsons Clothing Corporation in performing all or any of its obligations under the said contract and or the export contract and the L/ C established thereunder and as may be amended from time to time, the Bank shall pay to the Corporation forthwith on corporations first demand an amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- (Rupees eleven lacs Seventy thousand only) being approx. 5% of the contract value of the export. The payment shall be made by the Bank to the Corporation without any demur, protest or contestation and without any reference to supplier notwithstanding any dispute(s) whatsoever pending between the Corporation and the buyer. A certificate of the Corporation that supplier has defaulted in the fulfilment of its obligations shall be sufficient for the purpose of filing claim on the Bank under the Guarantee and the same shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Bank. The Bank shall forthwith pay to the Corporation the amount claimed by the Corporation up to the amount guaranteed herein. In case Bank fails to pay the amount claimed by the Corporation within 15 days of the date of demand of the Corporation, then the Bank shall also be liable to pay to the Corporation interest @ 22.75% per annum from the date of Corporation demand up to date of actual payment and the guarantee amount shall stand enhanced to the extent of the interest thus due and payable by the Bank."

On June 15, 1986 the Officer of the S.T.C. in terms of the guarantee had issued a certificate that the respondent had committed default in the performance of the contract and called upon the Bank to pay the sum of Rs. 11,70,000/- contracted under the bank guarantee. The respondent filed Suit No. 1086/85 in the High Court, Delhi for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the bank guarantee. I.A. No. 3455/85 was filed for temporary injuction, pending suit. By Order dated March 11, 1986, the learned single Judge of the High Court refused to grant injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. On appeal, the Division Bench in FAO (OS) No. 97 of 1986 by Order dated August 4,1986 issued the injunction as prayed for. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. Shri Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel for the
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top