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

2016 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KURIAN JOSEPH, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ
Gujarat Maritime Board – Appellant
Versus
L and T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. – Respondent
C.A. No.9821 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukul Rohatgi, Tushar Mehta
For the Respondents: Gopal Jain

A bank guarantee is an unconditional contract that must be honored by the bank upon valid demand, independent of any contractual disputes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Invocation of bank guarantee - Appellant was entitled to cancel Letter of Intent (LoI) and invoke bank guarantee due to breach of contract. A bank guarantee is independent of the contract between the parties and the bank is bound to honor it upon valid demand without inquiry into the breach by the beneficiary. (Para 13)

(B) Contract Law - Conditions of Bank Guarantee - The conditions under which a bank guarantee can be invoked are explicit and unconditional, allowing the beneficiary to demand payment without dispute. The High Court erred in restraining the invocation of the bank guarantee on grounds related to the performance of obligations under the LoI, which is a separate issue. (Para 12)

(C) Principles of Writ Jurisdiction - The court clarified that the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction must consider whether the action has public law characteristics and the existence of disputed facts that require comprehensive examination in civil suits. Monetary claims resulting from contractual obligations are not ordinarily a valid basis for writ petitions unless exceptional circumstances arise. (Paras 69-70)

Facts of the case:
The appellant issued a LoI to the first respondent for port development, requiring submission of project reports and environmental clearances. Due to the first respondent's admission of inability to perform its obligations, the appellant canceled the LoI and invoked the bank guarantee.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's order to restrain the invocation of the bank guarantee is erroneous, as a bank guarantee is unconditional and separate from the underlying contract.

Issues: The primary issue concerned the justification of the High Court in intervening under Article 226 regarding the invocation of a bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a bank guarantee is a standalone obligation that the bank must honor upon receipt of a valid demand from the beneficiary, irrespective of any contractual disputes.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of high court under article 226 (Para 2 , 3)
2. conditions of engagement with bank guarantee emphasized (Para 4 , 5)
3. writ petition considerations and their scope discussed (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. independence and unconditional nature of bank guarantees underscored (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether the High Court is justified in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the appellant from invoking an unconditional bank guarantee executed by the first respondent, is the main issue arising for consideration in this case.

3. The appellant invited bids for development of Sutrapada Port. In the process, a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as ‘LoI’) was issued to the first respondent on 06.02.2008. The relevant conditions of LoI are extracted below: 1.7 The Lead Promoter shall submit a detailed project report within 12 months of issue of this Letter of Intent (LOI) and present it to Gujarat Maritime Board for their approval.

1.8 The Lead Promoter shall obtain all environment clearances and coastal regulation zone (CRZ) clearances and effective financial closure and all such other clearances and permissions within 18 months or issue of this Letter of Intent.

1.9 A Performance Guarantee/Bank Guarantee of Rs 5 Crores (Rupees Five crores only) shall be submitted to Gujarat Maritime Board within 4 weeks of issue of this Letter of Intent in the Performa annexed herewith. (Annexure1). This performance/bank guarantee is against the submission of Detailed Project Report within 12 months and obtaining environment clearance, coastal regulation zone clearance and effecting financial closure within 18 months as mentioned in para 1.7 and 1.8 above, failing which Gujarat Maritime Board/Government shall cancel this Letter of Intent and bank guarantee shall be forfeited.”

4. On 07.05.2010, the first respondent requested for change of location from Sutrapada to Kachchigarh and the bank guarantee was extended. At the instance of the first respondent, the Yes Bank Limited furnished a bank guarantee to the appellant on 26.11.2011 for an amount of Rs.5 crores. The relevant conditions read as follows:

(a) We, YES BANK Ltd. do hereby guarantee and undertake to pay to GMB an amount not exceeding `5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) as against breach by the Lead Promoter for the development of Kachchigarh Port. The decision of GMB as to any breach having been committed and loss/damages caused or suffered shall be absolute and binding on us.

(b) We, YES BANK Ltd, do hereby undertake to without any reference to the Lead Promoter or any other person and irrespective of the fact whether any dispute is pending between GMB and the Lead Promoter or any court of Tribunal or arbitrator relating thereto, pay the amount due and payable under this guarantee without any demur, merely on demand from GMB stating that the said Lead Promoter’s failure to perform the covenants of the same. Any such written demand made by GMB on the Bank shall be conclusive, absolute and unequivocal as regards the amount due and payable by the Bank under this guarantee. However, Bank’s liability under this guarantee shall be restricted to an amount not exceeding `5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only).”

5. It appears, the first respondent could not proceed with the work even at Kachchigarh, and on such intimation, the appellant by letter dated 10.03.2015, cancelled the LoI issued to the first respondent. The communication dated 10.03.2015 cancelling the LoI to the extent relevant, reads as follows:

“This is with reference to your above mentioned letter informing GMB about your inability to develop a port at Kachchigarh due to presence of corals not seeking any further extension of the LOI.

In this regard, it is hereby informed that your admission on failure in taking up the Project is in breach of the conditions set out in the Letter of Intent dated 6.2.2008. At your

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 Back to top