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

1979 Supreme(Del) 163

HARISH CHANDRA, V.S.DESHPANDE
HARPARSHAD – Appellant
Versus
SUDARSHAN STEEL MILLS,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.B.DIWAN, JAGDIP KISHORE, P.K.SINHA, S.K.Paul, SHAILENDER SVARUP

V. S. Deshpande

( 1 ) GENERAL proposition do not solve concrete cases. Justice Holmes has said. While the law generally stated is that liability arising out of the unilateral contracts of commercial credits, such as letters of credit, bank guarantees and performance bonds is absolute, the intention of the parties as gathered from a reasonable construction of the language of the particular contract must ultimately govern the decision of the court as to the arising of the liability thereunder. The terms of a particular document may even constitute an exception to the general rule.

( 2 ) THE bank guarantee furnished by the Punjab National Bank (defendants-respondents 2 and 3) in favour of M/s. Harprashad and Co. Ltd. (appellant-defendant No. 1) contains the following material words :

"in case M/s. Sudershan Steel Rolling Mills fails in the judgment of M/s. Harprashad and Company Ltd. to carry out fulfil any of the obligations assumed under the said contract, we undertake to promptly pay the Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi, in favour of M/s. Harprashad and Company Ltd. or to their order merely upon receipt of first written notice, any amount up to Rs. 2,l3,6l8. 00 that





















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top