Posts

Q: Elaborate the citation of Kec International Limited vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut on 25 January, 2016 ?

Ans: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kec International Limited vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut ... on 25 January, 2016 As far as the ground to say that if adjudications are contrary to law laid down in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) the bank guarantee could not be revoked. We find that the law with regard to revocation of bank guarantee has been settled and it is an admitted position that in the matter of revocation of bank guarantee the law laid down is that an injunction against enforcement of bank guarantee can be granted by the court only in the event of fraud or irretrievable injustice. In the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others far back in the year 1995 (6) SCC 68 in para 5, after taking note of the judgments pertaining to injunction against encashment of bank guarantee the principle has been crystalized and it is a settled principle of law that in the event of fraud or irretrievable injustice an injunction can be granted in the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: What are the grounds of Injunction against invocation of bank guarantee ?

Ans: Grounds for grant of Injunction against the Invocation of Bank Guarantee  A. Fraud  i. Nature of the fraud  ii. Knowledge of Fraud  iii. Duty of care on the part of the negotiating bank  iv. Specific averments as to the allegation of fraud  v. Arbitrability of fraudulent invocation of a bank guarantee  B. Special Equities  i. Balance of Convenience and Prima Facie Case  ii. Genuine Apprehension of Irretrievable Injury  iii. Outstanding liability of the beneficiary in the underlying contract  iv. Threshold of Irretrievable Injury as set out in the Itek Corporation case  v. Existence of disputes in and/ or breach of the underlying contract  vi. Invocation of the bank guarantee by a third party  vii. Recovery of the amount in the underlying contract viii. Absence of assets of the beneficiary in India  ix. Violation of principles of natural justice 32 x. Invocation of bank guarantee should be in accordance with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference between fraud and misrepresentation ?

Ans: The main difference between fraud and misrepresentation is that fraud happens when a person or a party intentionally and willfully represents false information to deceive another party. In contrast, misrepresentation happens when a person or a party unintentionally represents false information to another party. Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation or concealment of fact with an aim to deceive the other party. Misrepresentation is an innocent misstatement made without any intention to deceive the party.  Fraud is defined under section 17 of Indian Contract Act 1872 whereas misrepresentation is defined under section 18 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.  In fraud, there is an intention to deceive the another party whereas in misrepresentation there is no intention to deceive the another party.  Section 19 of Indian Contract Act makes the Contract voidable in case of  misrepresentation.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: What is misrepresentation in contract act ?

Ans: A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract. If the misrepresentation is discovered, the contract can be declared void. Depending on the situation, the adversely impacted party may seek damages. According to Section 18 of indian contract act, in simple words, an innocent or any false statement made by one party to another party to make a contract is known as misrepresentation. In case of misrepresentation, the person making the statement is innocent, and he makes the statement without any intention to deceive the other party.
Post a Comment
Read more

Elaborate section 143 of Indian Contract Act ?

Ans: Section 143 of Indian Contract Act mentions about  Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation. Any guarantee obtained by misrepresentation made by the creditor is invalid.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: A,B and C have agreed to become liable for Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 40,000/- respec- tively as sureties for D. D's indebtedness was Rs. 40,000/-. What is the sum for which each of the three sureties are liable to pay ?

Ans: A,B and C have agreed to become liable for Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 40,000/- respectively as sureties for D. D's indebtedness was Rs. 40,000/ -. What is the sum for which each of the three sureties The f are liable to pay. Sec. 147 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with the Liability of co-sureties who are bound in different sums. Sec. 147 reads co-sureties who are bound in different sums are liable to pay equally as far as the limits of their respective obligations permit.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: "A" engages 'B" as a clerk to collect rents from his tenants. 'B' fails to account for the sums collected. 'A' in consequence call upon 'B' to fur- nish security and 'C' stand as security for 'B"s due. But 'A' does not inform 'C' about 'B's previ- ous defaults. Decide whether 'C' is bound by the guarantee ?

Ans: No. Sec. 143 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 talks about Guarantee obtained by concealment. This section states that any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence (concealment) as to material circumstances is invalid and so the surety is discharged. The instant case is a classic example of the provision u/s 143. B is engaged by A for collection of rent from his tenants and B fails to account for the sums collected. As B proved to be unreliable, A sought for a guarantee to be furnished. When C stood as a surety for B, he is not informed of the defaults committed by him on previous occasion. Thus it is concealment of a material fact which could affect the decision of C as to whether he would stand as a surety to B or not. In case B defaults in future again, C is not bound by the guarantee as he was innocent of the previous record of B.
Post a Comment
Read more