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

1997 Supreme(Online)(SC) 78

SUPREME COURT
J. S. Khehar, R. F. Nariman, JJ
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another
Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1996



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Harish N. Salve
For the Respondents: Sh. Sudhir Chandra

Bank guarantees must be honored by the bank unless established fraud or irreparable harm exists; courts must avoid granting injunctions against their encashment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 - Invocation of bank guarantees - The court examined the terms of the bank guarantees issued to ensure timely performance and clarified the entitlement of the beneficiary to realize bank guarantees irrespective of pending disputes. The court emphasized that injunctions restraining such encashment must be cautiously issued and are only permitted in cases of established fraud or irretrievable injury. (Paras 18-20, 22, 23, 34)

(B) Interim injunctions - The principle that courts avoid granting injunctions against encashment of bank guarantees was reiterated, emphasizing contractual obligations and the necessity for proven fraud or irreparable harm to justify such injunctions. (Paras 19-20, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 to supply equipment, which was not fulfilled, leading to the invocation of bank guarantees by the appellant that respondent bank refused to honor following an injunction application filed by respondent No. 1.

Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in granting injunctions based on unsubstantiated fraud allegations without examining the legitimacy of the invocation or considering the established principles regarding bank guarantees.

Issues: The main issues addressed included the principles governing injunctions against encashment of bank guarantees, including the necessity for established fraud and the requirements for irreparable harm.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled against the High Court's injunction orders, stating that contractual obligations under the guarantees must be honored unless clear fraud is established. The court emphasized the necessity for lower courts to adhere to established legal principles regarding bank guarantees and injunctions. (Paras 19, 20, 30)

Result: Appeal allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside.

Table of Content
1. agreement terms regarding bank guarantees. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. invocation process and response from the bank. (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 15)
3. principles against injunctions on bank guarantees. (Para 19 , 20 , 23)
4. high court's failure to uphold established principles. (Para 29 , 30)

1. Special leave granted.
Having been thwarted by orders of the court below in its attempt to get encashment of the bank guarantees, issued by the State Bank of India, Meerut Cantt. Branch (respondent No. 2) respondent No. 1 has led to the filing of this appeal by the aggrieved beneficiaries.

2. The appellant and respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement on 27th July, 1994 whereby respondent No. 1 was to supply boiling house equipment the cost of which was Rs. 5.23 crores. The supply of equipment and material was to start from 15th September, 1994 and the same was to be completed by 10th August, 1995, as per the schedule of the supply agreed to by the parties.

3. According to one of the clauses of the aforesaid agreement respondent No. 1 had agreed to furnish bank guarantees in favour of the appellant. Out of the above six, only four bank guarantees were furnished including bank guarantee No. 40/51 dated 1st December, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 26,15,000/- and bank guarantee No. 40/47 dated 24th November, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 35 lacs. These are the bank guarantees with which we are concerned in the present case.

4. Bank guarantee No. 40/51 was issued to ensure timely delivery of equipment and supply by respondent No. 1. The relevant clauses of the said bank guarantee No. 40/51 are as follows :
"In consideration of the premises the Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably undertakes to pay to the Purchaser on their first written demand and without demur such a sum not exceeding Rs. 26,15,000/- (Twenty six lacs fifteen thousand only) as the purchasers may demand representing 5% (five per cent) of the contract price, and if the guarantor fails to pay the sum on demand the guarantor shall also pay on the sum demanded interest at the bank lending rates then prevailing reckoned from the date of demand till the date of payment.
2. The guarantor shall pay to the purchaser on demand the sum under clause 1 above without demur and requiring the purchasers to invoke any legal remedy that may be available to them, it being understood and agreed firstly that the purchasers shall be the sole judge of and as to whether the sellers have committed breach(es) of any of the terms and conditions of the said agreement and secondly that the right of the purchasers to recover from the guarantor any amount due to the purchasers shall not be affected or suspended by reasons of the fact that any dispute or disputes have been raised by the sellers with regard to their liability or that proceedings are pending before any Tribunal, arbitrator(s) or Court with regard to or in connection therewith, and thirdly that the guarantor shall immediately pay the aforesaid guaranteed amount on demand and it shall not be open to the guarantor to know the reasons of or to investigate or to go into the merits of the demand or to question or to challenge the demand or to know any facts affecting the demand, and lastly that it shall not be open to the guarantor to require the proof of the liability of the seller to pay the amount before paying the aforesaid guaranteed amount to the purchasers.


5. The other bank guarantee No. 40/47 was originally issued for a sum of Rs. 51,70,000/- for securing advance payment. The agreement contemplated the liability being gradually reduced and on 28th August, 1995 this bank guarantee was reduced for a diminished amount of Rs. 33 lacs. The relevant clause of this bank guarantee is as follows :
"In consideration of the premises the guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably undertakes to pay to the purchaser on their first written demand and without demur such a sum not exceeding Rs. 51,70,000/- (Rupees fifty one lacs seventy thousand onl















































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