File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Grounds for Claiming Injunction over Irrevocable and Unconditional Bank Guarantees

Sr. No.	Case Name & Citation	Relevant Para	Para No.
1.	Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. v. Mahaboob Sharif, (2016) 14 SCC 517 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1302	“…adopt the principles laid down by this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174 and in Vinitec Electronics (P) Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd., (2008) 1 SCC 544 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 342 Having given our thoughtful consideration to the law laid down by this Court, in respect of grant/refusal of an injunction of an unconditional bank guarantee.” *Relevant Para(s) of Cited Judgements have been provided below.	14
2.	Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110	“…following principles should be noted in the matter of injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee: (v) Fraud of an egregious nature which would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee or letter of credit and the beneficiary seeks to take advantage of the situation. (vi) Allowing encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee or a letter of credit would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned.”	14
3.	Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane v. National Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 470	“In our considered opinion if the bank guarantee furnished is an unconditional and irrevocable one, it is not open to the bank to raise any objection whatsoever to pay the amounts under the guarantee. The person in whose favour the guarantee is furnished by the bank cannot be prevented by way of an injunction in enforcing the guarantee on the pretext that the condition for enforcing the bank guarantee in terms of the agreement entered between the parties has not been fulfilled. Such a course is impermissible. The seller cannot raise the dispute of whatsoever nature and prevent the purchaser from enforcing the bank guarantee by way of injunction except on the ground of fraud and irretrievable injury.”	22
4.	BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 728	"There are, however, two exceptions to this rule. The first is when there is a clear fraud of which the bank has notice and a fraud of the beneficiary from which it seeks to benefit. The fraud must be of an egregious nature as to vitiate the entire underlying transaction. The second exception to the general rule of non-intervention is when there are “special equities” in favour of injunction, such as when “irretrievable injury” or “irretrievable injustice” would occur if such an injunction were not granted."	10
5.	Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450	Dealing with the question of fraud it has been held that fraud has to be an established fraud. The following observations of Sir John Donaldson, M.R. in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase Manhattan Bank [(1984) 1 All ER 351, CA] are apposite: “… The wholly exceptional case where an injunction may be granted is where it is proved that the bank knows that any demand for payment already made or which may thereafter be made will clearly be fraudulent. But the evidence must be clear, both as to the fact of fraud and as to the bank's knowledge. It would certainly not normally be sufficient that this rests on the uncorroborated statement of the customer, for irreparable damage can be done to a bank's credit in the relatively brief time which must elapse between the granting of such an injunction and an application by the bank to have it discharged.”	21
5.		“The second exception to the rule of granting injunction, i.e., the resulting of irretrievable injury, has to be such a circumstance which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself, if he ultimately succeeds. This will have to be decisively established and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that there would be no possibility whatsoever of the recovery of the amount from the beneficiary, by way of restitution”.	22
6.	U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568	“When in the course of commercial dealings an unconditional bank guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realize such a bank guarantee in terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its customer. The very purpose of giving such a bank guarantee would otherwise be defeated. The courts should, therefore, be slow in granting an injunction to restrain the realization of such a bank guarantee. The courts have carved out only two exceptions. A fraud in connection with such a bank guarantee would vitiate the very foundation of such a bank guarantee. Hence if there is such a fraud of which the beneficiary seeks to take advantage, he can be restrained from doing so. The second exception relates to cases where allowing the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned.”	12
7.	U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174	“An irrevocable commitment either in the form of confirmed bank guarantee or irrevocable letter of credit cannot be interfered with except in case of fraud or in case of question of apprehension of irretrievable injustice has been made out.”	21
		“In order to restrain the operation either of irrevocable letter of credit or of confirmed letter of credit or of bank guarantee, there should be serious dispute and there should be good prima facie case of fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties. Otherwise the very purpose of bank guarantees would be negatived and the fabric of trading operation will get jeopardised.”	28
		“..commitments of banks must be honoured free from interference by the courts. Otherwise, trust in commerce internal and international would be irreparably damaged. It is only in exceptional cases that is to say in case of fraud or in case of irretrievable injustice be done, the court should interfere.”	34