B.GOEL
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED – Respondent
What are the principles governing the invocation of bank guarantees? What is the validity of a bank guarantee invocation when the invocation letter does not specify the amount of loss or damages suffered? What is the effect of extending a bank guarantee on the liability of the guarantor?
Key Points: - The court sought an injunction against the respondent from claiming or encashing two bank guarantees issued by the New Bank of India on behalf of the petitioner (!) . - The respondent was awarded a contract for the construction of Iraq Grain Storage Projects, and the petitioner was associated with a part of this project (!) (!) . - The petitioner furnished a performance bank guarantee and a bank guarantee to secure an advance payment, both of which were extended over time (!) (!) (!) . - Disputes arose between the parties, and the matter was referred to an arbitrator; the respondent invoked both bank guarantees (!) (!) . - The petitioner claimed the work was completed and the advance was adjusted, while the respondent denied performance and claimed outstanding dues (!) (!) . - The court partly allowed the petition, upholding the invocation of the bank guarantee for the advance amount but restraining the respondent from invoking the performance bank guarantee due to invalid invocation (!) . - The court noted that the extension of a bank guarantee can be seen as an admission of liability by the petitioner (!) . - The principles governing bank guarantees emphasize their independence from the underlying contract and the need for honoring irrevocable commitments unless fraud or special equity is established (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The invocation of the performance bank guarantee was found to be invalid because the letter did not specify the amount of loss or damages suffered, as required by the guarantee's terms (!) (!) (!) . - The invocation of the advance bank guarantee was upheld as the letter stated the advance had not been recovered and the guarantee terms gave the respondent sole discretion to determine the extent of loss or damage (!) (!) .
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 41 (b) read with Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking injunction against the respondent from claiming, demanding or encashing the Bank guarantees No. 27/78 of Rs. 5. 45 Lacs and No. 36/78 for Rs. 22. 59 Lacs issued by the New Bank of India, Haus Khas Branch, New Delhi on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the respondent is engaged in the business of execution of turnkey projects of different nature in India and abroad and had been awarded the work by the State Organisation of Grain of the Ministry of Internal Trade of the Republic of Iraq for construction of Iraq Grain Storage Projects at Talafar, Sinjar and Shirkat Sites in Iraq.
( 3 ) THE respondent by means of an agreement dated 5th July, 1978 associated the petitioner and gave part of the said project in respect of the work pertaining to Shirkat site to the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement.
( 4 ) THE petitioner inter alia had agreed to furnish a performance Bank guarantee equal to 5% of the Contract value
REFERRED TO : Hindustan Steel Work Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore and Co.
U.P. Co operative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd.
General Electric Technical Service Co. Inc. v. Punj Sons (P) Ltd
United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.