Can you restrain the bank to encash the LC in case of breach of contract?

-

  


Shubham Budhiraja (ACS, LLB, BCOM(H))

Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315


Injunction Application filed by A against Bank & B for seeking restraint against B and Bank to en-cash the letter of credit (LC) for reason that B has supplied the defective products in shipment. Therefore the Bank should not allow LC in favor of B. The HC in its original jurisdiction under commercial court held that the LC cannot be restrained. The defective supply of goods by B is by most stretch is a case of breach of contract and not a case of fraud. Therefore, unless there is a case of ‘egregious fraud and irretrievable injustice’, the LC cannot be restrained[1]. 

 

(i)                  It is a settled position of law that contracts in respect of Bank Guarantees and LCs are independent of the main contract between the parties. Therefore, even if there is a breach of the main contract between the parties, that cannot be a ground for injuncting payments under the Bank Guarantees/LCs. Letter of Credit is an irrevocable obligation undertaken by the issuing bank, to honour the same if the documents in terms of the said LC are submitted by the beneficiary.

 

(ii)                It is normal practice in international trade that LCs are issued by the buyers through their banks in favour of the seller through the seller’s banks, more particularly when buyer and seller are located in different jurisdictions/countries. LCs are the bedrock on which international trade and commerce is based. The goods are supplied by the seller to the buyer on the strength of the LCs provided by the buyer in favour of the seller, which functions as an assurance that once the goods are shipped and the documents in respect thereof are presented by the seller, the payment would be assured. The courts should be loathe to interfere with the mechanism of LCs as it would have an impact on the efficacy and functioning of international trade.

 

(iii)               Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC. Therefore, the courts have recognized only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass an injunction in respect of payments under an LC, in cases of ‘egregious fraud and irretrievable injustice’. It has repeatedly been held by the courts that ‘egregious fraud’ has to be a fraud of the kind which goes to the very root of the matter. 


[1] CS (COMM) 29/2022, DELHI HIGH COURT

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more