Supreme Court Disposes Appeal Regarding Bank Guarantee Payment with Interest. The appellant was entitled to receive a principal sum and interest from the date of invocation of the bank guarantee until a specified date.

  • 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 directed that the appellant should be paid the amount of the bank guarantee along with interest at 18% from the date of invocation. The court later determined 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 that any excess amount paid by the appellant to the bank should be refunded within two months of communication of the order. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Banking Law - Bank Guarantee - Entitlement to Principal and Interest - Not mentioned - The appellant was entitled to receive a principal sum along with interest 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. Held that the appellant was entitled to Rs.3,16,716.50 with interest at 8% (Paras 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 date.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was disposed of, directing the calculation of the principal sum and interest, with a refund of any excess amount paid by the appellant 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) 254

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 regarding encashment of a bank guarantee.

Remedy Sought

Injunction to restrain the appellant from encashing the bank guarantee.

Filing Reason

Invocation of bank guarantee by the appellant.

Previous Decisions

High Court granted stay of encashment of the bank guarantee.

Issues

Entitlement to principal sum and interest from bank guarantee invocation date

Submissions/Arguments

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

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was entitled to the principal sum and interest from the date of invocation of the bank guarantee, with specific directions for calculation and refund.

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% from 29 th of March, 1988 to 28 th of October, 2001. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.

Procedural History

The appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for an injunction regarding a bank guarantee.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Civil Procedure Case — Holds That Order VII Rule 11 CPC Permits Only Rejection of Plaint as a Whole. Partial rejection of a plaint is not permissible in law under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proce...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Order on Arbitration Award — Legal Misconduct Found. Legal Misconduct Found as Arbitrator Exceeded Jurisdiction and Failed to Consider Contractual Obligations Under Section 30 of the Arbitration A...