Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court added that if the payment of Rs.10 crores along with interest as directed, is not refunded within six months from the date of this order, SECI will be entitled to recover Rs. 10 crores plus interest as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
“The Engineer, in terms of the Agreement, does not have the power to review the decision of 08-05-2015 made by the earlier Engineer who has adjudicated upon the issue regarding change in the liability of petitioner on account of reduced BCD.”
Whilst the court is not unduly bound by the texts or Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule (5) or any other provisions of CPC, the substantial principles for grant of such interim measures cannot be disregarded.
Madras High Court clarified that this interim arrangement would be made only to safeguard the interest of both parties; and the bank guarantee to be furnished by the respondent is kept alive, till the decision is arrived at regarding validity of the notification dated 08-05-2023.
A Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. disposed of the petition and restrained from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee.
Fraud, as an exception to the rule of non-interference with encashment of bank guarantees, is not any fraud, but a fraud of an egregious nature, going to the root i.e., to the foundation of the bank guarantee and an established fraud. The entire case of the respondent fails to qualify for this.
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Krishna Murari, JJ has explained the scope of powers of a Commercial Court while
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ. while addressing a matter expressed that no judicial finding is
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ., while addressing the present matter, remarked that: Fate of
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., held that, Exception 3 to Section 28 of the Contract Act deals with curtailment of the
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal
On the basis of specific intelligence, under the direction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar Shri Debashish Sahu, investigation was initiated
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ and K.R. Mohapatra, J. set aside the impugned order being ultra vires
Kerala High Court: Anu Sivaram, J. allowed the Writ Petition by directing the respondent to only decide the amount of liability after
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL): A Coram of Justice Manjula Chellur (Chairperson) and S.D. Dubey, (Technical Member) allowed an appeal filed against
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. allowed a civil writ petition filed by a company and directed release of its vehicles
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bhakru, J. allowed a writ petition filed against the action of Andhra Bank in debiting a sum of Rs
Kerala High Court: The Bench of Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. granted a stay on encashment of bank guarantee by tax authorities until
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ravindra Bhat and A.K. Chawla, JJ., dismissed a First Appeal against an order declining