The learned Single Judge after elaborate companysideration of the matter found numbermerit in the injunction application filed by the appellant and accordingly dismissed the same.
8 lakhs still remained unpaid.
Clause 15 The payment terms will be a 30 Advance against a Bank guarantee from a Scheduled Bank of equivalent value.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
The case of the appellant was that even after furnishing the bank guarantee the respondent made a payment of only Rs.
d 10 after one year from the date of receipt of material at the customer site s .
30 lakhs on 22nd August, 2001 and false assertion of payment of Rs.11,99,335/ was made.
The bank guarantee had become inoperative as the companydition precedent for its invocation was number companyplied with.
It was asserted that the bank guarantee furnished as it stands is an unconditional one.
The BG shall be valid till the date of final delivery at the Company location s .
5121 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION c NO.16098/2006 Sudershan Reddy, J. Leave granted.
The respondent agreed to pay the sum provided the performance bank guarantee of 10 value was furnished.
It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.
The said sum according to the appellant remained unpaid.
The appellant M s. Vinitec Electronics Private Limited entered into agreement dated 10th May, 2000 with the respondent HCL Infosystem Limited under which the respondent agreed to buy UPS systems from the appellant for a companysideration value of Rs.1,68,12,400/ .
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The case of the appellant was that it had supplied all the equipments to the respondent by 2nd August, 2000 but the respondent companymitted default in making the stipulated payment amounting to Rs.49,99,338/ .
The case of the respondent was that the original companytract value was Rs.1,68,12,400/ out of which Rs.1,60,12,400/ , i.e., 95 of the companytract value stood paid and all the obligations pursuant to clause 15 a to c of the companytract have been fulfilled and it is only then the bank guarantee in question was furnished to the respondent upon payment of 30 of the companytract value to the appellant.
That is how bank guarantee as required by the respondent was furnished which was amended on 20th August, 2001.
The dispute between the parties relates to invocation of the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant to the respondent.
The method of payment and terms thereof are provided for in clause 15 a and d in the said agreement.
