In Brief
A long-running dispute arose over whether a bank guarantee could be restrained from encashment. The respondent sought to admit a handwriting expert's report to show the appellant's officers had committed fraud by forging signatures on various documents, arguing this justified stopping the guarantee payment. The Supreme Court held that while egregious fraud relatable to the guarantee itself may justify interference, fraud concerning collateral matters unrelated to the guarantee does not. Since the signature mismatch claimed involved different documents unrelated to the guarantee transaction, it provided no basis for restraint. The Court set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the respondent's appeal, and allowed the appellant's appeal, permitting encashment to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.