Kavitha Gupta's blog

  Delhi High Court Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mitun Garg on 11 April, 2018 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th April, 2018. + CS(OS) 15/2016, OA No.69/2017 & IA No.240/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Surabhi Dhar and Mr. Rohan Kothari, Advs. Versus MITUN GARG ..... Defendant Through: In person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the now sole defendant Mitun Garg as well as against one Ms. Sana Khan for (i) recovery, jointly and severally, of compensation in the sum...

  Guarantees and Indemnities” - Guarantees or Indemnities? Catalyst Business Finance Limited v. Very Tangy Television Limited, Richard Tuckwell, Very Tangy Media Limited [2018] EWHC 1669 (QB). The judgment  will be of great interest and value to invoice financiers and commercial lenders when considering the drafting and enforceability of their guarantees and indemnities. Not only does it affirm a lender’s entitlement to rely on a conclusive evidence clause (following Van der Merwe v IIG Capital LLC [2008] EWCA Civ 542), but it also provides helpful clarification on the distinction between a guarantee and an indemnity. An indemnity creates a primary obligation on the surety to pay a debt that is independent of the liability of the borrower under a finance facility, so it is not necessary to prove first the borrower is liable for the principal debt under the facility. A guarantee meanwhile, is a secondary obligation that is usually contingent on the borrower’s default. Generally...

  Termination options: General law or contractual right 29 May 2014 In  Newland Shipping and Forwarding Ltd v Toba Trading FZC  [2014] EWHC 661 (Comm), 12 March 2014, Leggatt J considered the interplay between express contractual rights to terminate an agreement and the rights to terminate that arise under the general law. A party which has a right to terminate both under a contract and the general law may exercise both of those rights provided there is no inconsistency in doing so. If it would be inconsistent to exercise both rights, the party must elect which right it wishes to exercise. The party seeking to terminate must clearly communicate which right is being exercised (or that both rights are being exercised), otherwise the communication may not be sufficiently certain for there to have been an effective termination.  Background Newland and Toba entered into a contract for the sale and carriage of gasoil. Clause 7 of the contract gave Newland the rig...

  Breaking up is hard to do – terminating agreements for breach Where a party breaches an agreement you might think that termination and any accompanying remedy easily follows but, as a number of recent first instance decisions have demonstrated, exiting with that clean break is sometimes hard to achieve. Bluewater - Is the purported remedy good enough? Bluewater Energy Services BV v Mercon Steel Structures BV and others   [2014] EWHC 2132 (TCC) (Ramsey J) [para 41 et seq] The agreement provided that where Mercon was in default, Bluewater could serve a notice of default requiring Mercon to undertake action to remedy the default. Any remedial action had to be to Bluewater’s satisfaction. Having served such a notice, Bluewater declared that the remedial works were not to its satisfaction and terminated the agreement. The court determined that whilst the question of what was ‘satisfactory’ was a matter for  Bluewater’s subjective view, this was subject to the implied limitat...