In the field of contemporary commercial contracts, bank guarantees are the cornerstone of security and usually encourage little court action in between stages. Exercising fair jurisdiction, Indian courts have typically adopted common law jurisprudence in creating the exceptions of “fraud” or “irretrievable harm” as grounds for awarding injunctive relief. A third exception of “special equities” has been developed, enabling parties to create the presence of “special circumstances.” But the terrain of this jurisprudence has lately changed to generate uncertainty and possible abuse.
The Standard of Autonomy and Judicial Restraint
By ensuring payment regardless of conflicts resulting from the primary contract, bank guarantees provide contracting parties major risk reduction. This basic quality has caused the principle of autonomy to crystallise, separating the bank guarantee from its underlying contract. Complementing this idea is the theory of stringent compliance, which guarantees that, long as the conditions of the guarantee are satisfied, a demand for payment or invocation of a bank guarantee must be met. Common law countries, including India, have always been cautious when granting injunctions against the calling upon bank guarantees. This strategy results from a need to preserve the integrity of business transactions and keep the effectiveness of bank guarantees as safe tools. The extent of discussion, however, revolves on how fairly jurisdictions award injunctive relief.
Exceptions’ Evolution in Indian Law
Beginning with the 1988 Supreme Court ruling in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., Indian jurisprudence on bank guarantee exceptions started its path earnestly. Based on English precedents, Justice Mukharji’s ruling concluded that an absolute bank guarantee could only be revoked on the grounds of fraud or in circumstances of a fear of irretrievable injustice. Crucially, Justice Mukharji developed the idea of “special equities” to help to explain irretrievable injustice. Further honing the exclusions were other Supreme Court rulings including U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. SUMAC International Ltd. (1997) and BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd. (2006). These rulings underlined the need of courts generally refraining from desisting from allowing the invocation of bank guarantees since they are naturally involved in business transactions. The exceptions consisted in circumstances of prima facie fraud and exceptional equity meant to prevent irretrievable unfairness between parties.
Reiterating that an injunction could be granted against the invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee if its encashment would result in irretrievable harm or injustice to one of the parties concerned, the threshold for special equities was further examined in the 2007 decision of Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co.
The 2008 ruling in Vinitec Electronics (P) Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. underwent notable crystallisation of ideas. The court listed three exceptions to the overall non-interference rule:
An extremely serious kind of fraud
Irretrievable injustice causing the parties at whose instance the bank issued the guarantee to suffer
Special equities, of which irretrievable injustice is simply one option.
This phrase seemed to clear the law, proving that the issuing of an injunction would not be justified by “special equities” by itself. Instead, the applicant has to prove causality of irretrievable injustice or injury to gain from the “special equities” exception.
The Standard Chartered Variance
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd. in 2019 upset the established view. Observing a catena of past decisions, this ruling arrived to the perplexing conclusion that “special equities” and “irretrievable injustice” could exist as separate circumstances necessitating an injunction against using a bank guarantee.
This deviation from accepted wisdom produced a great uncertainty. Justice Mukharji’s proposed phrase, “special equities,” was never precisely defined and its range of research is still hotly debated. By classifying “special equities” as a separate situation, the Standard Chartered ruling essentially threw a set of coordinate bench rulings into limbo.
This decision has a practical effect whereby a strategic plaintiff can rely merely on “special equities” instead of proving the causality of irretrievable injury or injustice. This uncertainty has set a domino effect, pushing lower courts to negotiate between several coordinate bench rulings of the Supreme Court while handling injunctions.
The COVID-19 Pandemic: An Other “Special Equity”?
Standard Chartered’s ambiguity was tested before the Delhi High Court in the April 2020 interim ruling of Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. The petitioner claimed that the COVID-19 epidemic constituted a unique condition in and of itself, so justifying the court’s injunction against the calling upon a bank guarantee.
The temporary ruling in Halliburton read the Standard Chartered ruling—that the Supreme Court had in fact visualised particular equities and irretrievable injustice—as separate events. This reading essentially reduced the element of proving “irretrievable injustice,” so attracting criticism both domestically and abroad for maybe compromising the integrity of financial instruments such bank guarantees.
Court Knowledge and Course Correction
It was not lost on anyone the debate over the Halliburton temporary order. Authorised by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, the interim ruling of the case was overturned in the last judgement. But the reversal was grounded in a factual analysis rather than in correcting the uncertainty Standard Chartered produced.
The ruling of the Delhi High Court in CRSC Research and Design Institute Group Co. Ltd. v. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corpn. of India Ltd. revealed a more thorough investigation of the matter. Author of the interim ruling in Halliburton Justice Hari Shankar seized the chance to fill in the gaps left by Standard Chartered.
The CRSC Research judgement produced some important findings:
“Irretrievable injustice” has to be of a scope that would beyond the terms of the guarantee as well as the negative impact on national economic activities.
“Special equities” have to be very “special” to overcome these factors.
“Special equities” cannot be given an elastic structure that would negate the overall norm.
Although Standard Chartered generated controversy, the CRSC Research ruling sought to guarantee that claimants would not be able to evade the weight of proving “irretrievable injustice.” Justice Hari Shankar did, however, freely accept that the Supreme Court’s rulings lacked clarity on the exact extent and definition of “special equities.”
Hearing the appeal in CRSC Research, the Delhi High Court’s division bench maintained the one judge’s ruling. Crucially, the split bench decided that “special equities” is a feature of the second exception of irretrievable injustice, therefore reflecting the logic used by Justice Mukharji in the 1988 U.P. Cooperative ruling.
The Direction Ahead
Jurisprudence on bank guarantee exceptions in India now reflects uncertainty and possibility for abuse. Litigants have started to take advantage of this uncertainty, submitting numerous cases to stop payment and void bank guarantee invocations, as the division bench in CRSC Research notes. This not only compromises the effectiveness of bank guarantees as safe tools but also overburdles the court system needlessly.
Many possible answers surface:
Supreme Court Clarification: The Supreme Court has to clearly state its Standard Chartered ruling right now. This should ideally come from a bigger bench to establish a binding authority and clear any uncertainty.
Legislative Intervention: To control bank guarantee calls resulting from COVID-related breaches, the Indian government could take temporary legislation under consideration, modelled by Singapore’s COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020. Such laws could clarify things and minimise court workload.
Contractual Solutions: Indian commercial contracts may start to include stipulations limiting a party’s power to seek equitable redress under the exception of “special equities,” modelled by Singapore in CKR Contract Services Pte. LTD. v. Asplenium Land Pte. Ltd. This strategy could, however, have limited effectiveness since courts would still have to evaluate the propriety of such excluding clauses.
Judicial Restraint: High Courts have to be careful with applications claiming the “special equities” exception in the interim. Serial litigators trying to profit from Standard Chartered’s uncertainty should make one cautious.
Finally
The genesis of the “special equities” exception in Indian law on bank guarantees shows a conflict between the necessity of fair relief and the need of preserving the dignity of commercial instruments. The Standard Chartered’s current uncertainty has presented difficulties for courts and possible chances for litigant abuse.
India’s legal system must be clear and certain in business concerns as it negotiates the economic difficulties presented by the COVID-19 epidemic. Treatment of bank guarantee exceptions affects companies and the larger economy, not only a theoretical issue.
The road ahead calls both delicately balancing. On one hand, the effectiveness of bank guarantees depends on the preservation of the autonomy principle and the stringent compliance concept, which is under jeopardy. To avoid irretrievable injustice, courts must, on the other hand, keep their capacity to grant fair relief in very unique situations.
India has to try to bring clarity to this field of law whether by legislative intervention, court explanation, or a mix of both. Only then will bank guarantees completely fulfil their function as the cornerstone of security in contemporary commercial transactions, therefore promoting trade and economic development and offering required safeguards to all those engaged.
Author Bio
