Skip to main content

Caution on injunctions against banks

Injunctions against banks for making payments to the beneficiary must be given cautiously, as judicial interference in the normal practices of the market can have disastrous consequences. It would affect the trustworthiness of Indian banks and markets, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment last week in the case, Millenium Wires vs State Trading Corporation. The two firms entered into an agreement for importing copper wire from Singapore and Malaysian companies. STC opened four letters of credit with Allahabad Bank, the issuing bank, and Malayn Banking BHD, the confirming bank. The latter bank released payments on presentation of letter of credit, which was opposed by Millenium Wires. It sought injunction from the Delhi High Court. It was rejected, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. On injunctions, the court emphasised that courts must be slow in granting injunctions restraining the realisation of a bank guarantee or letter of credit. Business persons take risks which are not to be imposed on the banks, lest the interference should deter trust in international commerce. However, there are two exceptions to the rule. First, when there is clear evidence to show that there was fraud of a grievous nature and the bank was aware of it. The second is that injustice of the kind which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself, or would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties, should have resulted.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/caution-on-injunctions-against-banks-115032900673_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more