P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved