Supreme Court Rules on Bank Guarantee Disputes and Contract Act Amendments

The case of Union of India & Anr. v. M/S IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr. revolves around the interpretation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, specifically concerning bank guarantees and the applicability of the 1997 amendment to Section 28. The Supreme Court examined whether contractual clauses restricting the invocation period of bank guarantees were valid under the amended law.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from bank guarantees issued by IndusInd Bank to secure obligations related to textile exports. The Union of India had required exporters to provide bank guarantees at 10% of the contract price. However, when the exporters failed to meet their contractual obligations, the Textile Commissioner invoked the guarantees.

IndusInd Bank refused to honor the guarantees, arguing that the invocation was made beyond the prescribed time. The government contended that the 1997 amendment to Section 28 rendered the time-limit clause in the guarantees void.

Key Legal Issues

• Did the 1997 amendment to Section 28 apply to bank guarantees issued before its enactment?
• Were time-limiting clauses in bank guarantees void under the amended law?
• Could the Union of India enforce the guarantees despite expiration clauses?

Arguments from the Appellants (Union of India)

• The government argued that the amendment to Section 28 voided contractual terms that restricted the enforcement period of rights.
• They contended that as the guarantees were still in force on 8.1.1997 (when the amendment took effect), the new law applied.
• The appellants relied on R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan to argue that the amendment was remedial and should apply retrospectively.

Arguments from the Respondents (IndusInd Bank)

• IndusInd Bank contended that the guarantees were executed before the amendment, making the unamended law applicable.
• They argued that the amendment could not retrospectively invalidate agreements signed under the old law.
• The respondents cited multiple Supreme Court rulings supporting the validity of time-limiting clauses in commercial contracts.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

1. Applicability of the 1997 Amendment

The Court ruled that the amendment was substantive and not merely clarificatory, making it prospective in nature. The judgment stated:

“Being remedial in nature, and not declaratory of the law, it is clear that rights and liabilities that have already accrued as a result of agreements entered into between parties are sought to be taken away.”

The Court held that the law applicable to the guarantees was the unamended Section 28, as the guarantees were executed before the amendment.

2. Validity of Expiration Clauses in Bank Guarantees

The Court reaffirmed that clauses limiting the time for making claims under bank guarantees were valid under the unamended Section 28. It cited Food Corporation of India v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. to hold:

“If a clause does not limit the period for filing a suit but merely restricts the time for invoking a guarantee, it is valid and does not contravene Section 28.”

3. Dismissal of the Union of India’s Appeal

As the bank guarantees had expired per their terms and the amendment did not apply retrospectively, the Court dismissed the government’s claim.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Section 28 of the Contract Act, as amended in 1997, applies only prospectively.
• Expiration clauses in bank guarantees executed before 1997 remain valid.
• The law does not invalidate agreements retroactively unless expressly stated.
• Commercial contracts must be interpreted based on the law in effect at the time of execution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. IndusInd Bank Ltd. clarifies that contractual time limitations in bank guarantees remain valid if executed before the 1997 amendment to Section 28. This decision reinforces contractual certainty in commercial transactions while respecting legislative intent.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India & Anr vs MS IndusInd Bank Lt Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-09-2016-1741883730623.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Corporate Compliance
See all petitions in Bankruptcy and Insolvency
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by C. Nagappan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category