Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Lucky Exports – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction against bank guarantee due to war situation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contested liability under the bank guarantee. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. conditions for interim stay relate to maintaining bank guarantee. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. judgment disposes of the appeal. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
CM No.11464/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
FAO (COMM) No.78/2021 & CM No.11463/2021 (for stay)
3. The appeal impugns the order dated 2nd March, 2020 of the Commercial Court, allowing the application of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and injuncting encashment of bank guarantee.
4. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff had a contract from respondent No. 3 Syrian Corporation for Spinning and Weaving, an entity incorporated in and according to laws of Syria, whereunder the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was required to furnish a bank guarantee. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff requested its banker namely Syndicate Bank, since amalgamated with respondent No. 2 Canara Bank, to issue the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
