Ramsarup Industries Ltd. Vs. W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and anr.

Ramsarup Industries Ltd. vs W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Oct 28, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/906084

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/906084
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: I . P. Mukerji, J.
Decided On: Oct 28, 2010
Case Number: T No.58 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramsarup Industries Ltd.

Advocate Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.

Respondent

W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and anr.

Advocate Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee Sr.; Mr. B. Mitra Advs.

Excerpt

the court: leave granted under clause 12 of the letters patent subject to the question of maintainability. this is an application to restrain invocation of bank guarantees for a sum of rs.6,35,77,499/- and rs.1,12,47,552/- both dated 7th march, 2009 and valid till 6th march, 2012. these bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner in connection with a works contract with the respondent corporation. it was terminated by the respondent no.1 on 5th of october, 2010. according to learned counsel for the petitioner payments of rs.9 crores or so are due to them by the respondent, corporation which is immediately payable. accordingly it is inequitable on their part to invoke the bank guarantee. i find from a perusal of the bank guarantee that it is an unconditional bank guarantee payable on demand. when a bank guarantee is unconditional and payable on demand, i do not think that pendency of any claim of the party, at whose instance the bank guarantee was furnished, against the beneficiary is a factor at all to stop invocation of such bank guarantee. it does not come within the equitable ground at all. those rights can be decided in arbitration. therefore, i do not find any substance in this application. accordingly, this application is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Full Judgment

The Court: Leave granted under Clause 12 of the letters patent subject to the question of maintainability. This is an application to restrain invocation of bank guarantees for a sum of Rs.6,35,77,499/- and Rs.1,12,47,552/- both dated 7th March, 2009 and valid till 6th March, 2012.

These bank guarantees were furnished by the petitioner in connection with a works contract with the respondent Corporation. It was terminated by the respondent no.1 on 5th of October, 2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner payments of Rs.9 crores or so are due to them by the respondent, Corporation which is immediately payable.

Accordingly it is inequitable on their part to invoke the bank guarantee. I find from a perusal of the bank guarantee that it is an unconditional bank guarantee payable on demand. When a bank guarantee is unconditional and payable on demand, I do not think that pendency of any claim of the party, at whose instance the bank guarantee was furnished, against the beneficiary is a factor at all to stop invocation of such bank guarantee. It does not come within the equitable ground at all.

Those rights can be decided in arbitration. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2010 Same Parties Ramsarup Industries Ltd. vs W.B.S.E.D.C.L. and anr. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge I . P. Mukerji, J.