IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Punjab National Bank And Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7677 of 2019, CM.APPL Nos.31885 & 53198 of 2019, 11497, 18809 & 18810 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2021
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 28 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void - Creditor and principal debtor - Whether petitioner can charge commission or retain margin money beyond the period of bank guarantee including claim period, is a matter of contract between parties and cannot be a subject matter of writ petition before this court - Grievance of petitioner is that based on an erroneous interpretation of section 28 of Contract Act, respondent bank forces a mandatory and an unalterable claim period of a minimum 12 months for bank guarantee. It is stated that claim period is a time period contractually agreed upon between creditor and principal debtor, which provides a grace period beyond validity period of guarantee to make a demand on bank for a default, which occurred during validity period. This claim period may or may not even exist in a bank guarantee.
Finding of the Court : Limiting the time within which rights are to be enforced is void provided rights to be enforced under contract continue to exist even beyond shorter agreed period for enforcing rights. If beyond shorter period agreed between parties, rights under contract are not kept alive, no limiting of the time to enforce rights under contract arises and such an agreement putting a time limit to sue will not be hit by section 28 of the Act - It is clear that respondent No. 1 is erroneously of view that they are in law mandated to stipulate a claim period of 12 months in the bank guarantee failing which clause shall be void under Section 28 of Contract Act. A perusal of para 15 of writ petition shows that a claim period has been explained as a time period contractually agreed between creditor and principal debtor which provides a grace period beyond validity period of guarantee to make a demand on bank for a default which has occurred during validity period. Respondent No. 1 does not deny above averments of petitioner in counter affidavit. As noted above, Section 28 of Contract Act does not deal with the said claim period. It deals with right of creditor to enforce his rights under the bank guarantee in case of refusal by the guarantor to pay before an appropriate court or tribunal - Court cannot interfere in such contractual matters especially as they are not contrary to any rules or regulations or stipulation framed by RBI - Court may only note that in writ petition, no relief is sought by petitioner pertaining to the bank charges to be charged by banks or duration for which bank may seek to maintain collateral security.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction of like nature quashing and setting aside the letters dated 18.08.2018 and 28.03.2019 both issued by Respondent No.1 to Petitioner No.1 directing the Petitioners that the Claim period in the Bank Guarantee must be for at least 12 months;
(b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction of like nature quashing and setting aside the letter dated 10.02.2017 bearing reference No. Legal/Cir2102/BG Opinion and letter dated 05.12.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 to all Member Banks in relation to the minimum period for lodging a claim with the Bank under the Bank Guarantee;
(c) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction of like nature directing the Respondents to discard any interpretation of Section 28(b) read with Exception 3of the ICA which prescribes a minimum period of 12 months of validity, for making a demand by a Creditor of a Contract of Guarantee under Section 126 of the ICA issued upon a Bank or a Financial Institution as a "surety", where such Bank Guarantee has been issued at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 as a Principal Debtor or issued for the benefit of the Petitioner No.1.”
2. Essentially the dispute in the present petition centers around interpretation of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contract Act’). The grievance of the petitioner is that based on an erroneous interpretation of section 28 of the Contract Act, respondent bank forces a mandatory and an unalterable claim period of a minimum 12 months for the bank guarantee. It is stated that the claim period is a time period contractually agreed upon between the creditor and principal debtor, which provides a grace period beyond the validity period of the guarantee to make a demand on the bank for a default, which occurred during the validity period. This claim period may or may not even exist in a bank guarantee.
3. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 reads as follows:
“28 Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.-
Every agreement,-
(a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, or
(b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights,
is void to that extent.
Exception 1.—Saving of contract to refer to arbitration dispute that may arise.
This section shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration, and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred.
Exception 2.—Saving of contract to refer questions that have already arisen.
Nor shall this section render illegal any contract in writing, by which two or more persons agree to refer to arbitration any question between them which has already arisen, or affect any provision of any law in force for the time being as to references to arbitration.
Exception 3.—Saving of a guarantee agreement of a bank or a financial institution.
This section shall not render illegal a contract writing by which any bank or financial institution stipulate a term in a guarantee or any agreement making a provision for guarantee for extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party thereto from any liability under or in respect of such guarantee or agreement on the expiry of a specified period which
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. vs. Kalyan Banerjee
Explore Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Cals Ltd & Anr.
Food Corporation of India v. New India Insurance Company Limited
Food Corporation of India Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 324
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India
Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India
U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P.
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Contract and Specific Reliefs - Bank Guarantee - Validity of - A claim period of 12 months in the bank guarantee failing which clause shall be void under Section 28 of Contract Act.
The court affirmed that bank guarantees are independent contracts, enforceable irrespective of disputes, and the invocation was valid as it fell within the claim period, with no evidence of fraud or ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank guarantee cannot be invoked in the absence of default on the part of the respondent company, and the interim relief is not maintainable....
A Bank Guarantee cannot be invoked after its expiration, as the obligation of the Bank to pay is strictly defined by the guarantee's terms.
A bank guarantee cannot be invoked after its expiration; claims must adhere to specified timeframes as per the terms of the guarantee.
The demand for compensation for short lifting of coal was impermissible as no loss was incurred by the respondent. The court restrained the respondent from encashing the bank guarantee, as it would r....
Invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee cannot be restrained unless fraud or irretrievable injustice is established; the nature of bank guarantees is independent and absolute.
Bank guarantees are enforceable independent contracts, subject to invocation conditions; courts refrain from interference unless fraud or injustice is evidenced.
The obligation of a bank guarantee is independent of underlying contractual disputes, and interference is justified only in cases of fraud or irretrievable injustice.
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.