Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Canara Bank – Appellant
Versus
Helm Dungemittel GMBH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context and factual background of the case related to canara bank's claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by canara bank and helm regarding interim relief and obligations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of prima facie case and balance of convenience. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. determination of the quantum of amount in dispute and interest calculated. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final conclusion allowing canara bank's petition with proposed conditions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"] has been filed seeking interim measures for securing the amount in dispute of 38 crores, pending appointment of the arbitral tribunal. Canara Bank - the Petitioner - also seeks continuation of orders of restrain against withdrawal of bank guarantee of Rs.15 Crores, furnished by Respondent No. 1 in O.M.P. (I.) (COMM.) 318/2018.
2. Briefly stated, the background of the case is as follows:
2.1. Canara Bank issued a performance bank guarantee [hereinafter, "PBG"] of USD 67,86,450/- for securing transaction between Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter, "Helm"] and Responde
Interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act require establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; court granted interim protection by ret....
The court's decision emphasized the principles guiding the grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, and the importance of establishing a prima facie ca....
The court emphasized the importance of the arbitral tribunal providing reasons for its decisions, especially regarding unadjudicated claims for interest arising from wrongful invocation of guarantees....
The court affirmed that a performance security cannot be withheld post-acknowledgment of contract performance, and interim relief must balance equities in arbitration under Section 17 of the Act.
Court affirmed the importance of maintaining a bank guarantee during pending arbitration proceedings while allowing parties to explore their legal remedies regarding claims.
Bank guarantees are independent contracts and can only be restrained from invocation in cases of fraud or special equities, which were not established in this case.
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....
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.
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
