Topics: Legal & compliance Sports betting Strategy IBIA signs betting integrity agreement with Malta regulator The International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), the integrity monitoring body previously known as ESSA, has entered into a betting integrity cooperation agreement with the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA). Regions: Europe Southern Europe Malta AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter The International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), the integrity monitoring body previously known as ESSA, has entered into a betting integrity cooperation agreement with the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA).The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) establishes a formal arrangement between the IBIA and the MGA’s Sports Integrity Unit, which launched in August to increase focus and resources dedicated to preventing the manipulation of sporting events.The MoU is the first agreement between the Sports Integrity Unit and a betting monitoring system, with the two organisations to focus on protecting consumers, sports and betting markets from betting-related corruption.“The MGA has made the fight against the manipulation of sports competitions a core part of its licensing and regulatory policy,” MGA sports integrity officer Antonio Zerafa said. “Working in partnership with other stakeholders, notably betting operators, is critical to the success of that approach and the MoU with IBIA is therefore of particular importance.“IBIA and its members bring a wealth of market and consumer data that will undoubtedly serve to significantly strengthen the information and intelligence gathering ability of the Unit.”IBIA chief executive Khalid Ali added: “The creation of the Sports Integrity Unit and its focus on tackling match-fixing is a very welcome move, which is why I am delighted to have reached this agreement with the MGA that will allow us to work collaboratively on integrity.“For its part, IBIA will utilise its unique global betting monitoring system, which includes many of the largest MGA licensed operators, to provide information on suspicious betting to the Unit with the aim of preventing sports betting related corruption.”Upon establishing the Unit earlier this year, the MGA said that the new Unit will gather intelligence and information relating to suspicious betting and serve as a liaison with both national and foreign regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, betting monitoring systems, sporting bodies and gaming operators to investigate activity.The Unit will also work with other MGA divisions to implement policy initiatives such as signing cooperation agreements with other entities focused on tackling corruption in sport. 19th December 2019 | By contenteditor Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter Legal & compliance Email Address
CopyCollaborator:Francisco Adriasola C.Construction:TDRSite Area:1.277,88 m2Built Area:139,8 m2 + terracesProject Architects:Francisca Rivera Palma, Jose Riesco UrrejolaCity:Las CondesCountry:ChileMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldRecommended ProductsWindowsKalwall®Facades – Window ReplacementsEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesRodecaRound Facade at Omnisport Arena ApeldoornFiber Cements / CementsULMA Architectural SolutionsPaper Facade Panel in Leioa School RestorationWindowsRabel Aluminium SystemsMinimal Casement Windows – Rabel 8400 Slim Super Thermal PlusText description provided by the architects. The commission consisted of a simple program: a space for various public activities in the house: living, working, and eating, in addition to integrating an exhibition area for pre-Columbian artworks, with an independent kitchen, bedrooms and bathrooms.Save this picture!Plan 2The main difficulty was to achieve a quality space for the owner, who was used to living in large areas, and was building a detached house for a new period of life.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldThe site was an old plot with houses and existing park, subdivided among the children, leaving a remnant where the new house would be located, with access and parking for the entire site, disrupting as minimum as possible the trees and vegetation.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldThese conditions combined with the views and sunlight, define clear relations with the outside, which were conditioned and defined. The south and west facades should be closed, the former due to regulations and the latter due to the parking area.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldTo continue to maintain the visual relationship with the park, we opted for a second level connected through a ramp, which seeks to predict an uncertain future and allows easy access to the library wall.Save this picture!Section 1The house is configures as 2 rectangles turned on the first and second floors. Looking for the best visual and sunlight orientations, these are connected through a double height and the ramp-library. This turn generates intermediate spaces, which on one side give privacy to the various uses, exposing the pre-Columbian figures, concentrating in one space the entire public space required. Outside, through these walls and turns, 5 courtyards of different qualities are built, creating openings and closings that condition the relationship with the outside and the existing landscape.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldProject gallerySee allShow lessCall for Applications: Dutch Design Summer SchoolCall for SubmissionsFritted Glass: Staple or Trend?Articles Share ArchDaily ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/784498/noguera-house-riesco-plus-rivera-arquitectos Clipboard Architects: Riesco + Rivera Arquitectos Asociados Year Completion year of this architecture project Year: “COPY” Houses 2011 “COPY” Chile Projects Noguera House / Riesco+Rivera arquitectosSave this projectSaveNoguera House / Riesco+Rivera arquitectosSave this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldHouses, Houses Interiors•Las Condes, Chile Photographs ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/784498/noguera-house-riesco-plus-rivera-arquitectos Clipboard Photographs: Aryeh Kornfeld+ 27 Share Noguera House / Riesco+Rivera arquitectos CopyAbout this officeRiesco + Rivera Arquitectos AsociadosOfficeFollowProductsWoodSteel#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesInterior DesignResidential InteriorsHouse InteriorsLas CondesChilePublished on March 30, 2016Cite: “Noguera House / Riesco+Rivera arquitectos” [Casa Noguera / Riesco+Rivera arquitectos] 30 Mar 2016. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
Fatal Accident Reminds of Need for Extra Caution During Harvest By Andy Eubank – Nov 1, 2012 Home News Feed Fatal Accident Reminds of Need for Extra Caution During Harvest SHARE It was a very ugly scene in Tippecanoe County on the evening of Halloween. A combine and minivan collided resulting in death for several in the van. The tragedy serves as a harvest reminder that motorists and farm machinery operators alike need to be extra vigilant this time of year. But Purdue safety specialist Dr. Bill Field says that’s not where the trend is headed.“The reality is that we’re becoming more and more urban, less and less rural,” he told HAT. “We have less of a rural mindset. Many people have become indifferent to some of the rural activities that take place. I think there is responsibility on everybody’s part, including the operator of heavy equipment as well as the motorist, but there needs to be this recognition that everyone is sharing the road. Everyone needs to be alert, and we’ve gotten so many distractions beyond just the lack of experience with this heavy equipment.”Those distractions include conversations with others, texting, and even the new electronics in the farm implements. So all parties are capable of being distracted, but Field has observed some habits that should alarm rural America.“I help out a little with my neighbor on some farm chores, and it amazes me how many people will attempt to track past me on the left, on the right, just because I’m going slower, and it appears in my mind as they look at me that they’re disgusted that I’m in their way. It’s that lack of sensitivity and that lack of sharing that needs to be obvious for all of us using the highway. We need to remember that farmers aren’t out there to make life difficult for me as an operator of a car or pickup truck. They’re out there because they’re moving food from field to farm to storage to processing.”And, he says, all those using the roads need to be a part of that. It’s too early to make a 2012 harvest assessment, but Field says it appears to be a rather smooth harvest. Accidents last year went down and he is hopeful there will be a similar report for 2012.[audio:https://www.hoosieragtoday.com//wp-content/uploads//2012/11/harvest-safety-on-the-roads.mp3|titles=harvest safety on the roads](picture courtesy of John Terhune of the Journal and Courier in Lafayette) Previous articleEstimating Crop Insurance PaymentsNext articleNew POET Sales Manager Coordinates Local Feed Purchases Andy Eubank SHARE Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter
RSF_en SomaliaAfrica to go further Organisation Help by sharing this information Reporters Without Borders is saddened to learn that Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas, a young TV journalist based in Las Anod, in the breakaway northwestern territory of Somaliland, was gunned down as he returned home yesterday.Employed by privately-owned Universal Television, Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas was shot several times in the head by gunmen who have yet to be identified. He was the 16th journalist to be killed this year in Somalia.”As a result of this grim death toll rising week by week, Somalia now ranks alongside Syria as one of the two deadliest countries in the world for journalists in 2012,” Reporters Without Borders said.”Yesterday’s tragedy highlighted the fact that journalists are exposed to appalling dangers in the rest of the country as well as the capital, Mogadishu. There is an increasingly urgent need for the authorities to take measures to protect journalists against both armed militias and officials who try to silence news media.”The political and security situation is very tense in Somaliland and journalists are often the direct victims of the local government’s desire to control the circulation of information.Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas and two of his colleagues were briefly detained on 12 October for broadcasting programmes presenting Somali Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon in a favourable light. Many other arbitrary arrests of journalists have taken place in Las Anod.The comedian Abdi Jeylani Malaq, a Universal Television colleague of Ilyas, was gunned down in similar circumstances in Mogadishu in AugustPhoto : Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas Receive email alerts February 24, 2021 Find out more News RSF requests urgent adoption of moratorium on arrests of journalists Follow the news on Somalia News SomaliaAfrica Radio reporter gunned on city street in central Somalia News RSF and NUSOJ call for release of a journalist held in Somalia’s Puntland region News October 24, 2012 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Another journalist murdered in Somalia, 16th this year March 2, 2021 Find out more January 8, 2021 Find out more
LA JOLLA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 3, 2021– DermTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: DMTK) (“DermTech”), a leader in precision dermatology enabled by a non-invasive skin genomics platform, announced today that DermTech management will present at the BTIG Virtual MedTech, Digital Health, Life Science & Diagnostic Tools Conference on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Interested parties may access a live webcast of the presentation and, for 90 days following the BTIG Conference, an archived webcast of the presentation through the “Investor Relations” section of DermTech’s website at: www.DermTech.com. About DermTech: DermTech is the leading genomics company in dermatology and is creating a new category of medicine, precision dermatology, enabled by our non-invasive skin genomics platform. DermTech’s mission is to transform dermatology with our non-invasive skin genomics platform, to democratize access to high quality dermatology care, and to improve the lives of millions. DermTech provides genomic analysis of skin samples collected non-invasively using an adhesive patch rather than a scalpel. DermTech markets and develops products that facilitate the early detection of skin cancers, and is developing products that assess inflammatory diseases and customize drug treatments. For additional information on DermTech, please visit DermTech’s investor relations site at: www.DermTech.com. Forward-Looking Statements: This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The expectations, estimates, and projections of DermTech may differ from its actual results and consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Words such as “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget,” “forecast,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “believes,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, expectations with respect to: DermTech’s plans to attend investor conferences, and the performance, patient benefits, cost-effectiveness, commercialization and adoption of DermTech’s products and the market opportunity therefor. These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from the expected results. Most of these factors are outside of the control of DermTech and are difficult to predict. Factors that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to: (1) the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against DermTech; (2) DermTech’s ability to obtain additional funding to develop and market its products; (3) the existence of favorable or unfavorable clinical guidelines for DermTech’s tests; (4) the reimbursement of DermTech’s tests by Medicare and private payors; (5) the ability of patients or healthcare providers to obtain coverage of or sufficient reimbursement for DermTech’s products; (6) DermTech’s ability to grow, manage growth and retain its key employees; (7) changes in applicable laws or regulations; (8) the market adoption and demand for DermTech’s products and services together with the possibility that DermTech may be adversely affected by other economic, business, and/or competitive factors; and (9) other risks and uncertainties included in (x) the “Risk Factors” section of the most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by DermTech with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and (y) other documents filed or to be filed by DermTech with the SEC. DermTech cautions that the foregoing list of factors is not exclusive. You should not place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. DermTech does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210203005273/en/ CONTACT: DermTech Sarah Dion [email protected] 858.450.4222Westwicke Partners IR Caroline Corner, PhD [email protected] 415.202.5678 KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: ONCOLOGY MEDICAL SUPPLIES MEDICAL DEVICES HEALTH GENETICS BIOTECHNOLOGY SOURCE: DermTech, Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/03/2021 04:01 PM/DISC: 02/03/2021 04:01 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210203005273/en Local News Twitter Pinterest Pinterest Previous articleMcCarthy condemns Greene’s remarks but criticizes DemocratsNext articleXiaomi’s neueste Luftaufladung und G9 Staubsauger Premiere Digital AIM Web Support DermTech Management to Present at the BTIG Virtual MedTech, Digital Health, Life Science and Diagnostic Tools Conference Facebook WhatsApp Facebook TAGS By Digital AIM Web Support – March 4, 2021 WhatsApp Twitter
Previous articleOpsCruise Emerges From StealthNext articleMogo Announces Closing of US$54 Million Registered Direct Offering Priced At-the-Market Digital AIM Web Support Twitter Pinterest Pinterest WhatsApp Intuit CFO Michelle Clatterbuck to Present at Morgan Stanley Technology Virtual Conference WhatsApp MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 24, 2021– Michelle Clatterbuck, chief financial officer of Intuit (Nasdaq: INTU), will present at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Virtual Conference on Mar 2. The presentation will begin at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time (12:30 p.m. Eastern time) and will be available live via audio webcast on Intuit’s investor relations website at http://investors.intuit.com/events/default.aspx. A replay of the webcast will be available approximately 24 hours after the presentation ends. ABOUT INTUIT: Intuit is a global technology platform that helps our customers and communities overcome their most important financial challenges. Serving millions of customers worldwide with TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma and Mint, we believe that everyone should have the opportunity to prosper and we work tirelessly to find new, innovative ways to deliver on this belief. Please visit us for the latest news and information about Intuit and its brands and find us on social. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005191/en/ CONTACT: Investors Lisa Patterson Intuit Inc. 650-944-2713 lisa—[email protected] Media Kali Fry Intuit Inc. 650-944-3036 kali—[email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATA MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE FINANCE INTERNET ACCOUNTING SOURCE: Intuit Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/24/2021 07:42 PM/DISC: 02/24/2021 07:42 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005191/en By Digital AIM Web Support – April 6, 2021 Facebook TAGS Local NewsBusiness Facebook Twitter
ColumnsPerformance Bank Guarantees: The Linchpin Of Commercial Transactions [Part III] Ragini Agarwal26 Sep 2020 11:13 PMShare This – xThis series of blog posts shall recount the law on evolution of performance bank guarantee in India. It shall cover the meaning of bank guarantee as distinguished from indemnity and letter of credit, and the legal framework governing performance bank guarantees in India in Part 1; the types of bank guarantees and character of such guarantees in Part 2; and finally, the exceptions and…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThis series of blog posts shall recount the law on evolution of performance bank guarantee in India. It shall cover the meaning of bank guarantee as distinguished from indemnity and letter of credit, and the legal framework governing performance bank guarantees in India in Part 1; the types of bank guarantees and character of such guarantees in Part 2; and finally, the exceptions and rules concerning invocation of bank guarantees in Part 3. Invocations and Encashment “[C]ommitments of banks must be honoured free from interference by the courts.” Justice Oza, U.P Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) Since the character of performance bank guarantees is independent of the underlying contract (see Part 2/3), at the time the invocation of bank guarantees is sought to be injuncted, courts cannot go into the question of whether there was breach of contract etc. If the invocation of guarantee is in the manner specified in the contract, banks are obligated to honour the guarantee, even if the amount is disputed. The beneficiary’s decision on the quantum suffices. In case of unconditional bank guarantees, the ordinary principles of grant of injunction with the three pronged test, viz., prima facie case in favour, balance of convenience and irretrievable injury, as specified in Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not looked at. Bank guarantees stand on a different footing and the ordinary rule is that trading operations should not be jettisoned, and the faith of the people in the efficacy of the banking transactions should not be eroded or brought to disbelief [Ansal Engineering v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (1996)]. Courts have evolved two narrow grounds which, if proven to exist in the facts and circumstances of the case, would entitle the applicant for an injunction. A. Exceptions to Invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee The application of exceptions originated from the law on letter of credit which was applied to performance bank guarantees as well [See, UCO Bank vs. Bank of India, (1981) and Centax (India) Ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc. (1986) applied in U.P Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (“Singh Consultants case”) (1988)]. The above Singh Consultants case was one of the first cases to lay down the two exceptions of: Egregious fraud; and Irretrievable injury and injustice to determine whether grant of injunction against performance bank guarantee was justified. This was reiterated in the later 2019 Supreme Court case of Standard Chartered v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd & Ors. (2019). It may be noted that the act of a beneficiary in not invoking guarantee does not act as a bar in later invoking the guarantee. Let us understand the two grounds as specified for invoking guarantees. 1. Egregious Fraud: Fraud as an exception to invoking guarantee is based on the maxim exturpi causa non oritur actio i.e. a party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongful act. Here, the fraud must be on the part of the beneficiary. Fraud has been defined under §17, Indian Contract Act, 1872 as any act committed by a party, or with his connivance, or by his agent, to deceive the other party or his agent or to induce him to enter into a contract. When it comes to bank guarantees, the fraud must be egregious, i.e. go to the root of the matter to vitiate the contract of guarantee. Mere existence of dispute between parties cannot amount to fraud and become a ground for restraining enforcement of guarantee. It has been argued that fraud vitiating the bank guarantee is required to have a nexus with the acts of the parties prior to entering in the contract, however, in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. (1996) it was clarified that the subsequent conduct of the beneficiary as well, could lead to a conclusion of fraud. To justify injunction, the fraud must be an established fraud and not mere speculation. This was held by Sir John Donaldson, M.R. in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase Manhattan Bank NA as quoted with approval in the Singh Consultants case. To be successfully argued, such a fraud must of a nature in relation to the bank guarantees or have a bearing on the invocation of the bank guarantees, and must also be a fraud to the knowledge of the bank (¶53). In the case of Mercator Oil & Gas Limited v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (2019), Bombay High Court refused to entertain the argument that there was fraud committed when the respondent had merely taken a decision in the best commercial interests of the project. Vague allegations of fraud would not amount to fraud of egregious nature, vitiating the entire transaction [Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (2008), ¶25] 2. Special Equities: Special equity is a broad term and denotes existence of special circumstances that justify the injunction against performance bank guarantees. It was coined in the Indian context in the Calcutta High Court judgment of Texmaco Ltd. v. State Bank of India (1979). However, mere existence of special equities does not suffice to justify an injunction, it must be accompanied by irretrievable injustice and harm, as was held in Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome (1994). Here, the American case of Itek Corporation v. The First National Bank of Boston was quoted wherein the realization of bank guarantees when Iran was undergoing turmoil was not permitted as it would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd & Anr., (1997), this standard was clarified and it was stated that it must be decisively established that there is no possibility of recovery based on principles of restitution, if the guarantee is allowed to be invoked. In cases where contract is not completed owing to war like situations in foreign nations, injunction against invocation is granted based on the ground of special equities. In BHEL v. Egyptian Electricity Transmission Co. (2020), where majority of the supply under the contract had been done and only a miniscule remained which could not be completed due to war-like situation in Egypt, the Delhi High Court concluded that this amounted to force majeure. Special equities were said to exist since the plaintiff would not be able to recover the amounts under guarantee, if encashed, on account of the disturbance in Egypt, and hence the balance of convenience also lay in its favour. This inability to recover money in case of wrong invocation also played a role in grant of injunction in BHEL v. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (2018). It is seen from the above that special equities are said to exist not merely on the happening of a force majeure event, but if the event is also qualified by an additional causal link of irretrievable injustice being caused to the party on account of the situation of special equity. Note: The question of whether the “irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice” exception is used interchangeably with “special equities” is academically unclear, although in practice interchangeable usage does seem to be the case. In General Electric Technical Services Comp. Inc. vs Punj Sons (P) Ltd. (1988), for example, the grounds for exception were noted to be “fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties” (emphasis supplied). In Indu Projects Ltd. v. UOI (2013), the Delhi High Court held that the expression irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice have been used interchangeably with expression special equities. However, the Apex Court in the judgment of Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engineering Corporation (2019) stated the grounds to be “fraud, irretrievable injustice and special equities” (¶26) thereby denoting the grounds of “irretrievable injustice” and “special equities” to be distinct from each other. The treatment of injunction in COVID-19 situation is analysed in Section C of this article. B. Other exceptions “Unjust enrichment” was argued as a ground for grant of injunction in Klen & Marshall Manufacturers v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff argued that the invocation of bank guarantee by the defendant was with the intent of unjustly enriching himself at the expense of the plaintiff. The Court dismissed the petition since the law on contractual obligations under bank guarantee was well settled and relying upon Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1997) stated that ground of unjust enrichment would not be a valid one, to injunct the performance of the guarantee. In BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd. (2006), it was argued before the Supreme Court that an injunction must be granted against invocation on grounds of “lack of good faith” or “enforcing with an oblique purpose”. The basis for this ground was found in the U.K. case of TTI Team Telecom Ltd. v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. (2003) where it was said: “The basis for a contention of a breach of faith must be established by clear evidence even for the purposes of interim relief. A breach of faith can arise in such situations as: a failure by the beneficiary to provide an essential element of the underlying contract on which the bond depends; a misuse by the beneficiary of the guarantee by failing to act in accordance with the purpose for which it was given; a total failure of consideration in the underlying contract; a threatened call by the beneficiary for an unconscionable ulterior motive; or a lack of an honest or bona fide belief by the beneficiary that the circumstances, such as poor performance, against which a performance bond had been provided, actually exist.” While it was clarified that disputes with respect to breach of contract, a determination of a contract for cause, a repudiation of a contract or the incurring of loss have occurred, where these are events covered by the performance guarantee would not be allowed to be brought under the grounds of breach of faith, this ground of “breach of faith” was wider than the ambit of fraud. Further, the Appellant also placed reliance upon a Singapore case of Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte. Ltd. v. Sum Cheong Piling Pte. Ltd. (2002) where it was held that invoking a performance guarantee for an oblique purpose was not permissible. Using it as a “bargaining chip” or a “deterrent” or in an “abusive manner” so that it would be an unconscionable invocation, would not be permissible. The Supreme Court, while appreciating the tenor of the arguments held that the arguments were unsustainable in light of the long line of judgments which had clearly held that there were only the two grounds for stopping the encashment of guarantees. Creating a third ground would not be permissible. The judgment established that unless the challenge to invocation could be pigeon-holed into one of the two exceptions to invocations, the unconditional bank guarantee would be allowed to be performed. Notably, while invocation under “breach of faith” was specifically dismissed in BSES v. Fenner case, special equities were held to exist by the Delhi High Court when the invocation is done in a distrustful manner. For instance, in Leighton India Contractors v. DLF Ltd. before the Delhi High Court on May 13, 2020, the respondent had already received the amount after invocation of performance bank guarantees. Going into the question of injunction at that juncture was fruitless, however, the Court took into account the clauses of the contract and the bank guarantee, noted the fact that the invocation was done in a distrustful manner, and held that a case of special equities existed. The facts of the case showed that the parties had been working with each other in a collaborative manner and that the communication by the respondent did not show an intention to invoke the guarantee or to terminate the contract. To protect the interests of the petitioner, the Court ordered that the amount of performance bank guarantees be placed in an interest bearing fixed deposit on auto renewal mode. In another case before the Delhi High Court, Tecnimont Private Limited v. ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. on 20 June, 2020 (Del HC), the invocation of guarantee with the intention to subvert an arbitral award was held to be invalid. C. Analysis of COVID-19 as a situation of Special Equity to injunct invocation The pandemic that has affected contractual obligations and economy world over has been argued by parties to be a force majeure event which justifies the injunction of bank guarantees as a condition of special equities exists. Courts have been slow to prima facie grant injunction only in light of the pandemic. Force majeure has been narrowly interpreted in light of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog (2017) wherein the Court declared that it was not the domain of the Courts to absolve the parties from performing their part in the contract. In Haliburton Offshore Services v. Vedanta Ltd (2020), the Delhi High Court further clarified that mere existence of COVID-19 would not justify every breach or non-performance of the parties. “The Court would have to assess the conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak, the deadlines that were imposed in the contract, the steps that were to be taken, the various compliances that were required to be made and only then assess as to whether, genuinely, a party was prevented or is able to justify its non- performance due to the epidemic/pandemic.” (¶62) In Indrajit Power Private Limited v. UOI (2020) as well, the Delhi High Court interpreted adopted a strict approach to force majeure and noting that the party had failed to fulfil its obligations even before the pandemic, refused to grant an injunction. It may be noted that in case of a dispute between the parties with respect to whether a force majeure clause was properly invoked or not, the arbitral tribunal has the final jurisdiction to determine such a question [Global Steel Philippines v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (2009)]. Courts refuse to intervene in contractual obligations of the parties even for interim relief under the broad ambit of §9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Rashmi Cement Ltd. v. World Metals & Alloys (Fzc) (2020)]. The Bombay High Court, in Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. G. S. Global Corp & Ors. (2020), outright refused to allow the limited period of lockdown to allow the petitioner to resile from its contractual obligations. However, where the party is unable to perform the contract on account of force majeure conditions, courts have allowed grant of injunction against invocation of bank guarantee. For instance, in Transrail Lighting Limited v. Public Electricity Corporation Republic of Yemen (2020), the plaintiff was unable to perform the contract on account of civil unrest in Yemen and the project had not been completed because the situation of civil unrest situation in Yemen had remained unchanged for five years. Here, injunction was granted. The position that seems to emerge from the above holdings of various courts is that while the existence of the pandemic may create an unviable situation for performance of contracts, the obligation of honouring the unconditional bank guarantee will not be discharged unless special equities are shown to exist within the facts and circumstances of the case. The pandemic by itself will not lead to a free getaway for parties from honouring contractual obligations. There must be an accompanying fact of irretrievable injustice or injury to the applicant in case of invocation of guarantee. This is a sound principle. D. Potential Cases of Departure from Established Principles The 2016 Supreme Court case of Gangotri Enterprises Limited v. Union of India & Ors. is particularly controversial. In this case, the appellant contended that the performance bank guarantee was not liable to be invoked since the works had been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent evident by the issue of the completion certificate. Among other grounds pleaded to stop the encashment of guarantee, one was that arbitration proceedings were pending to decide the amount payable for damages. The Supreme Court relied upon Union of India v. Raman Iron Factory (1974) to hold that one party could not be the sole judge to quantify the amount payable and that the phrase “sum due” denoted a sum for which there is an existing obligation to pay in praesenti. It may be pertinent to point out that encashment of bank guarantees was not an issue in Raman Iron Factory case. The Supreme Court in Gangotri Enterprises found that the amount being claimed did not relate to the amount for which guarantee was given. The amount being claimed under the guarantee was in the nature of damages which was still pending adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. Since the sum was neither due in praesenti, nor payable, but was disputed, there existed no right to encash the guarantee (¶42). Hence, the Supreme Court went on to hold that whether or not injunction can be granted must be decided taking into account facts involved in each case and that the lower courts had erred in dismissing plea to grant an injunction. This decision is controversial since it seems to militate against established principles on character and invocation of bank guarantee, namely that the beneficiary shall be sole determinant of the sum payable, and that the bank cannot demand proof of liability if the invocation is done as per the terms of guarantee contract (See Part 2). In support of the decision, at the same time, it may be argued that the turning point of this case was the fact that the contract on which the bank guarantee had been based was already completed. In 2017, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in NCC Limited v. Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited and Ors. stated that the Gangotri Enterprises case seemed to be bad in law and ran contrary to the three judge bench decision in Ansal Engineering v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (1996). It also noted that reliance upon Raman Iron Factory case by the Supreme Court was misplaced. Previously, when in the case of Tarapore & Co. (1996), the High Court had relied upon the Raman Iron Factory case to hold that one party could not be the sole judge of the quantification of sum payable in the context of bank guarantee, the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal against the High Court decision. It had stated: “The High Court also committed a grave error in restraining the appellant from invoking bank guarantees on the ground that on India only reasonable amount ca be awarded by way of damages even when the parties to the contract have provided for liquidated damages and that a term in a bank guarantees making the beneficiary the sole judge on the question of breach of contract and the extent of loss or damages would be invalid and that no amount can be said to be due till and adjudication in that behalf is made either by a court on an arbitrator, as the case may be. In taking that view the High Court has overlooked the correct position that a bank guarantees is a independent and distinct contract between the bank and the beneficiary and is not qualified by the underlying transaction and the primary contract between the person at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the beneficiary.” Thus, reliance upon Raman Iron Factory case by the Supreme Court in Gangotri Enterprises being based upon a false premise, the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant injunction against invocation of bank guarantee. In Larsen and Toubro v. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) as well, the Delhi High Court dismissed reliance on Gangotri Enterprises case and following the established law on bank guarantees did not grant an injunction on the same. It may be noted that the practice of not following the established law on guarantees has been deprecated by the Supreme Court on a previous occasion. E. Release from Performance Bank Guarantee Once the opposite side is fully satisfied regarding the performance of the contract and its execution, the release from guarantee is granted. Where a bank guarantee stands discharged on account of its own contractual terms, it cannot be invoked. This summarises the evolution of law on performance guarantees.Views are personal only.  See also, U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568; Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Coal Tar Refining Company, AIR 2007 SC 2798; Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. v. Mahboob Sharif, (2016) 14 SCC 517; Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 46.  (1984) 1 All ER 351.  566 Fed Supp. 1210.  Marathon Electric Motors (India) v. North Eastern Electric Power, 2011 SCCOnline Del. 1208. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Pinterest Google+ Previous articleInvestment announced for seafood support projects in DonegalNext articleHealth professionals meeting to discuss Paul Harte’s future care News Highland Facebook By News Highland – July 16, 2018 Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Google+ Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows WhatsApp Pinterest Twitter Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Homepage BannerNews DL Debate – 24/05/21 News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th There are severe traffic delays being reported on the Kilmacrennan Road as a result of a road crash close to Letterkenny University Hospital.Gardai and other services are at the scene, and significant traffic build ups are being reported.Motorists are being urged to avoid the area if possible. Traffic build-up following collision close to LUH Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR