Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others

Grant of an interim injunction restraining encashing of the Bank Guarantee refused - Held that:- On perusal of the record of the case, we find that firstly, arbitration proceedings in relation to the contract dated 22.08.2005 are still pending. Secondly, the sum claimed by the respondents from the appellant does not relate to the contract for which the Bank Guarantee had been furnished but it relates to another contract dated 22.08.2005 for which no bank guarantee had been furnished. Thirdly, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

furnished for execution work of contract dated 14.07.2006 (Anand Vihar works) and the work having been completed to the satisfaction of the respondents, they had no right to encash the Bank Guarantee.

We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that both the courts below erred in dismissing the appellant's application for grant of injunction.

We are also of the view that the District Judge having decided the injunction application in the first instance in appellant's favo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso they have made out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour as was held by this Court in the case of Union of India (DGS&D) (1974 (3) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT ). Allow injunction application made by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act in Arbitration Suit no. 411/2011 in District Court, Allahabad and grant injunction in appellant's favour by restraining the respondents jointly and severally from encashing Bank Guarantee no. 12/2006 dated 04.08.2006 furnished b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der of District Judge which had refused to grant an interim injunction restraining encashing of the Bank Guarantee by the respondents herein. 3) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra. 4) The respondents, i.e., North Central Railway invited tender for doing earth work in embankment and cutting including provision of machine crushed/blended material blanketing layer and construction of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,46,742/-, the date of commencement of work was 14.03.2005 and the date of completion of work was 13.03.2007. As the work could not be completed within the prescribed time, on the request of the appellant-Company, the period of completion of work was extended twice by the respondents, firstly, from 14.03.2007 to 31.12.2007 and again upto 30.09.2008 without levy of penalty and with price variation clause benefit. 5) On 14.07.2006, the appellant-Company was granted another work by the respondents- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ihar works, the appellant-Company submitted a Bank/Performance Guarantee bearing No. 12/2006 dated 04.08.2006 from its banker Indian Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., Cantt. Road, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as Bank ) for a sum of ₹ 1,32,78,820/-. 6) Since the work relating to contract dated 22.08.2005 could not be completed within the prescribed time/extended time by the appellant due to non-availability of site because of the agitation of the farmers and non-supply of the specifica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the appellant got the completion certification from the respondents for the Anand Vihar works with a defect liability period of six months, which also came to an end on 30.03.2011. Thus the appellant became entitled to seek the release of the Bank/Performance Guarantee No. 12/2006 submitted by it for the said work from the respondents. 8) On 27.06.2011, the appellant, therefore, wrote a letter to the respondents-North Central Railway for return of the Bank/Performance Guarantee No. 12/2006. 9) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wrote a letter to the Bank which had furnished Bank Guarantee No.12/2006 for and on behalf of the appellant for the encashment of the said Bank Guarantee. 11) On 02.12.2011, the final bill for the Anand Vihar works were cleared by the respondents and the payment for the same was released by the respondents. 12) Since the disputes had arisen between the parties in relation to and arising out of the contract dated 22.08.2005, the appellant invoked Clause 36 read with Clause 64 of the General Condi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alia alleged in the application that the respondents-North Central Railway have no right to encash the Bank Guarantee No.12/2006 furnished by the appellant in relation to dispute arising out of another contract dated 22.08.2005. It was alleged that firstly, Bank Guarantee was not furnished by the appellant in relation to contract dated 22.08.2005 but was furnished in performance of another contract dated 14.07.2006 (Anand Vihar works) which is a separate contract and has nothing to do with the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same having been performed by the appellant to the satisfaction of the respondents, the appellant-Company was entitled to get its Bank Guarantee No.12/2006 released from the respondents. It was further alleged that in these circumstances, the respondents have no right to encash the Bank Guarantee in relation to any dues arising out of other contract with the appellant. It was also alleged that in any event, so long as the disputes arising out of the contract dated 22.08.2005 are not finally .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

GCC empowers the respondents to make recovery of any dues from the appellant. It was contended that since the respondents have a claim/dues for payment of a sum of money against the appellant (contractor), they (respondents) would be entitled to exercise their right of recovery given to them under Clause 62(1) even if such claim is not for a sum due and sum payable and is a claim for damages though disputed by the appellant and remains to be adjudicated upon in a court of law or by the arbitrat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich attained finality. 16) By letters dated 20.01.2012 and 29.01.2012, the appellant then requested the respondents for return of its Bank Guarantee. 17) On 13.03.2012, an arbitration Tribunal was constituted as per Clause 32 read with Clause 64 of the contract between the parties which comprised of Shri Arun Kumar, CCE/NCR/ALD, Shri A.K. Bijalwan FA&CAO/F&B/NCR/ALD and Shri R. Rajamani Former CCRS & Member/Arbitrator to look into the claims and the counter claims of the parties. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said Bank Guarantee in their favour. 20) Since the respondents went on insisting for encashment of the Bank Guarantee again and again saying that order dated 04.01.2012 passed by District Judge no longer survives as its life was only upto the date of constitution of arbitral Tribunal and hence the respondents became entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee, the appellant again filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act bearing Arbitration Suit No. 216 of 2012 before the District Judge, Allahabad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 22) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing F.A.F.O. No. 2930 of 2012 before the High Court. 23) By impugned judgment dated 23.07.2012, the High Court concurred with the view taken by the District Judge and dismissed the appellant s appeal. 24) Challenging the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave. 25) Heard Mr. B. Adinarayan Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atul Chitaley, learned senior counsel for the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ne contract (Anand Vihar works) dated 14.07.2006 and the same having been admittedly performed by the appellant to the satisfaction of the respondents (North Central Railway), as is clear from the completion certificate dated 30.09.2010 issued by the respondents in appellant's favour, the purpose for which the Bank Guarantee had been furnished was over as soon as the Satisfaction Certification was issued by the respondents in appellant s favour. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

secondly, so long as the liability as to how much sum was payable and if so by whom it was payable was not finally determined in accordance with law in the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators, there was no "sum due" and nor any "sum payable" in praesanti by the appellant to the respondents and vice versa in connection with another contract. 28) In the third place, learned counsel contended that the District Judge, in the first instance, having rightly granted the injun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ead of again going into the merits of the case. 29) Lastly, learned counsel urged that in the light of this legal position arising in the case, the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction against the respondents (North Central Railway) from encashing the bank guarantee in question. 30) In reply, learned counsel for the respondents (North Central railway) supported the impugned order and contended that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order and hence it b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s already decided by this Court and hence it is necessary to examine the facts of the case and law laid down therein in detail and then apply the same to the facts of the case at hand. 33) The facts of the case of Union of India (DGS&D) (supra) were that the respondent (Raman Iron Foundry) entered into a contract with the Union of India (DGS&D)-the appellant for supply of certain quantity of "Foam compound". The contract, apart from several other conditions, contained two claus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting in whole or in part, the security, if any, deposited by the contractor, and for the purpose aforesaid, shall be entitled to sell and/or realise securities forming the whole or part of any such security deposit. In the event of the security being insufficient, the balance and if no security has been taken from the contractor, the entire sum recoverable shall be recovered by appropriating any sum then due or which at any time thereafter may become due to the contractor under the contract or a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herefore, liable to pay to the respondent a sum of ₹ 2,35,800/- by way of damages suffered by the respondent by reason of the breach of the contract whereas the appellant, on the other hand, said that it was the respondent who committed the breach of the contract and was, therefore, liable to pay to the appellant by way of damages a sum of ₹ 2,28,900/-. In the meantime, the appellant through Assistant Director of Supplies sent a letter to the respondent calling upon the respondent to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amages claimed by it from several pending bills of the respondent. The learned Single Judge dismissed the injunction application on the ground that it could not be proved that there were any pending bills but at the same time allowed the application made under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act and referred the matter to arbitration as per Clause 24 of GCC. This is how the claim/counter claim of the parties became the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings. 36) Pending arbitration p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view that Clause 18 did not authorize the appellant to appropriate the amounts of any pending bills of the respondent towards satisfaction of its claim for damages against the respondent unless such claim for damages was either admitted by the respondent or adjudicated upon by the arbitrator or suit in civil court. Accordingly, the injunction, as prayed for, was granted to the respondent against the appellant. It is this issue, which was carried by the Union of India to this Court. 37) The quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stly, whether in such case, contractor is entitled to claim injunction against the Union of India from making recovery of such sum. 38) Justice Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench examined the issue in great detail in the light of law laid down by English and Indian Courts. The learned Judge in his distinctive style of writing after examining the entire case law on the subject held that an expression "sum due" occurring in Clause 18 would mean a sum for which the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the contractor is satisfied. It was also held that a claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the purchaser is not entitled in exercise of the right conferred upon it under Clause 18 to recover the amount of such claim by appropriating other sums due to contractor. 39) Their Lordships approved the view taken by Chagla C.J. in the case of Iron and Hardware (India) Co. vs. Firm Shamlal and Bros., AIR 1954 Bom.423 by observing in para 11 as und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the last mentioned case, stated the law in these terms: (at pp. 425-26) In my opinion it would not be true to say that a person who commits a breach of the contract incurs any pecuniary liability, nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract who complains of the breach has any amount due to him from the other party. As already stated, the only right which he has is the right to go to a Court of law and recover damages. Now, damages are the compensation which a Court of law .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the Court is doing is ascertaining a pecuniary liability which already existed. The Court in the first place must decide that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess what that liability is. But till that determination there is no liability at all upon the defendant. This statement in our view represents the correct legal position and has our full concurrence. A claim for damages for breach of contract is, therefore, not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the purchas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of dispute, adjudicated upon by a court or other adjudicatory authority. We must, therefore, hold that the appellant had no right or authority under clause 18 to appropriate the amounts of other pending bills of the respondent in or towards satisfaction of its claim for damages against the respondent and the learned Judge was justified in issuing an interim injunction restraining the appellant from doing so. 12. We accordingly dismiss the appeals. The appellant in each appeal will pay the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f contract owing to default of contractor. The relevant portion of Clause 62 reads as under: The amounts thus to be forfeited or recovered may be deducted from any moneys then due or which at any time thereafter may become due to the Contractor by the Railway under this or any other contract or otherwise. 42) On perusal of the record of the case, we find that firstly, arbitration proceedings in relation to the contract dated 22.08.2005 are still pending. Secondly, the sum claimed by the responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

admitted sum and nor a sum which stood adjudicated by any Court of law in any judicial proceedings but it is a disputed sum and lastly, the Bank Guarantee in question being in the nature of a performance guarantee furnished for execution work of contract dated 14.07.2006 (Anand Vihar works) and the work having been completed to the satisfaction of the respondents, they had no right to encash the Bank Guarantee. 43) We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that both the courts below erred in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: REGISTRETION

Notification: Absolute Exemption from IGST on inter-State supplies of goods

Notification: CGST Rate Schedule u/s 9(1) - notifying rates of CGST @ 2.5%, 6%, 9%, 14%, 1.5% and 0.125% on Supply of Goods

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Forum: On what Value tax to be deducted at source (TDS)

Highlight: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods. - Notification no. 1/2017 as amended vide notification dated 22-9-2017

Notification: IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% on supply of goods.

Highlight: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards - Tenure of the NACAS extended from one year to two years

Notification: National Advisory Committee on Accounting Standards

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force - "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary"

Highlight: Restriction on number of layers for certain classes of holding companies - More than two layers of subsidiaries not allowed subject to certain exceptions.

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version