Delhi HC: Difference in Layout is of No Consequence if Essential Feature of Trademark Infringed  ||  Allahabad HC: Parliament has Responsibility to Restrain Criminals from Entering Into Politics  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Vacate Stay on Direction to Enforce CM's Speech Promising Rent Relief  ||  J&K&L HC: Judges Must Refrain from Making Derogatory Remarks Against Parties  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Should be Sensitive When Poor And Deprived Knock at its Doors  ||  CESTAT: Law Does Not Mandate Customs Broker to Physically Verify Address of Client  ||  Orissa HC: Appeal Can’t be Dismissed on Sole Ground of Non-Submission of Certified Order  ||  ITAT: Deposit of Banned Notes Received Out of Cash Sales During Demonetization Period is Valid  ||  ITAT: Arrangement Between Spouse Without Real Money Exchange Not Amount to Unexplained Investment  ||  ITAT: 100% Deduction U/S 80IC of IT Act allowable when Industry undergone Substantial Expansion    

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 2022 - All Rights Reserved