Supreme Court Disposes of Appeal Regarding Bank Guarantee Payment. Court directed calculation of principal and interest on bank guarantee invoked by appellant.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a suit filed by Macgregor Navire Port Equipment A.B. against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, seeking an injunction to restrain the appellant from encashing a bank guarantee. The appellant had invoked the bank guarantee on March 29, 1988, but the bank did not make the payment, leading to a stay order from the High Court on April 28, 1988. The Supreme Court noted that the bank guarantee had expired on February 24, 1989, and previously directed that the bank should pay the appellant the amount of the bank guarantee along with interest at 18% pending the appeal. The court found that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 3,16,716.50 as the principal sum with interest at 8% from March 29, 1988, to October 28, 2001. The court ordered the parties to calculate the amount and directed the appellant to refund any excess payment to the bank within two months. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Headnote

A) Banking Law - Bank Guarantee - Entitlement to Payment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant was entitled to receive the principal sum of Rs. 3,16,716.50 along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of invocation of the bank guarantee until a specified date. The court directed the calculation of the amount and refund of any excess payment made by the appellant to the bank (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant was entitled to the principal sum and interest from the bank guarantee invocation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court directed the calculation of the principal sum of Rs. 3,16,716.50 along with interest at 8% from March 29, 1988, to October 28, 2001, and ordered any excess amount paid to be refunded to the bank within two months.

Law Points

  • Bank guarantee
  • injunction
  • interest calculation
  • appeal disposal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (02) 234

Civil Appeal No. 5181 of 2001

2008-02-21

Tarun Chatterjee, Harjit Singh Bedi

Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay

Macgregor Navire Port Equipment A.B.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute over encashment of a bank guarantee.

Remedy Sought

Injunction against encashment of the bank guarantee.

Filing Reason

Appellant invoked the bank guarantee, leading to litigation.

Previous Decisions

High Court granted stay on encashment of the bank guarantee.

Issues

Entitlement to payment under bank guarantee Calculation of interest on the invoked amount

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant claimed entitlement to the principal sum and interest. Respondent sought to restrain the encashment of the bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established the entitlement of the appellant to the principal sum and interest on the bank guarantee invoked, emphasizing the need for proper calculation and refund of excess payments.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant was entitled to get Rs.3,16,716.50 being the principal sum together with interest at the rate of 8%. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against a suit for injunction regarding the encashment of a bank guarantee, leading to interim orders and final directions from the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Husband's Revision Petition Challenging Maintenance Order Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. — Wife's Right to Maintenance Upheld as Husband Failed to Prove Adultery or Desertion.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Alternate Employment Rights of Colour Blind Driver Under Binding Industrial Settlement; Sets Aside High Court Order. Medical retirement without assessing non-driving posts violates Clause 14 of 1979 MOS under Section 12(3) Indus...