SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

Gammon-OJSC Mosmetrostroy JV and Ors. v. Chennai Metro Rail Limited and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (08 Sep 2015)

CMRL’s invocation of Gammon’s guarantee would cause irretrievable injustice

MANU/TN/2876/2015

Commercial

The Madras High Court granted an injunction in favour of Gammon, preventing Chennai Metro Rail Limited from invoking its bank guarantee. CMRL’s move stemmed from Gammon’s intention to rope in an Italian firm to help complete the project within the stipulated timeframe. The Court dismissed allegations that such an act was fraudulent, noting that Gammon had faced several lengthy delays arising out of operational and approval-related causes. It viewed efforts to bring in a third-party contractor as a bona fide move to completing the project in time.

Relevant : Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs State of Bihar MANU/SC/0654/1999 The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., vs The State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0282/1974 Bishundeo Narain vs Seogeni Rai MANU/SC/0059/1951

Tags : FRAUD   GUARANTEE   METRO   INJUNCTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved