Denel Soc Ltd v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (19910/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 102; [2013] 3 All SA 81 (GSJ) (4 March 2013)
The Court held that the demands made by the Second and Third Respondents to the First Respondent under the counter-guarantees were not compliant with the terms of the guarantees. The guarantees were restricted to payment upon the occurrence of specific events, namely, the Applicant's failure to meet performance and warranty obligations. The demands were made for reasons broader than those agreed to, including alleged breaches of anti-corruption clauses, which were not covered by the guarantees. The Court found that the principle of autonomy and independence of demand guarantees and counter-guarantees applies, but payment is only required if the demand strictly complies with the terms of...
- Citation
- [2013] ZAGPJHC 102
- Parties
- Applicant: Denel SOC Limited; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: State Bank of India; Respondent: Bank of Baroda; Respondent: Union of India
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 4 March 2013
- Case Number
- 19910/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Interdict Pending Arbitration
- Outcome
- Application granted. The First Respondent is interdicted from making payment under specified counter-guarantees pending finalisation of arbitration and court proceedings in India.
- Judges
- Malindi AJ
- Legal Topics
- First Demand Guarantee, Counter Guarantee, Strict Compliance, Fraud Exception, Performance Bond, International Trade Finance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Denel SOC Limited
Applicant
Absa Bank Limited
Respondent
State Bank of India
Respondent
Bank of Baroda
Respondent
Union of India
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Interdict Pending Arbitration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the demands made under the principal and counter-guarantees were compliant with the terms of the guarantees.
- 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining payment under the counter-guarantees pending arbitration in India.
- 3 Whether the fraud exception applies to the demands made by the Fourth Respondent and, consequently, the Second and Third Respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the demands made by the Second and Third Respondents to the First Respondent under the counter-guarantees were not compliant with the terms of the guarantees. The guarantees were restricted to payment upon the occurrence of specific events, namely, the Applicant's failure to meet performance and warranty obligations. The demands were made for reasons broader than those agreed to, including alleged breaches of anti-corruption clauses, which were not covered by the guarantees. The Court found that the principle of autonomy and independence of demand guarantees and counter-guarantees applies, but payment is only required if the demand strictly complies with the terms of...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The First Respondent is interdicted from making payment under specified counter-guarantees pending finalisation of arbitration and court proceedings in India.
Orders
- The First Respondent is interdicted from making payment in respect of the listed counter-guarantees pending finalisation of arbitration and court proceedings in India.
- The First Respondent is interdicted from making payment to the above counterparties pending finalisation of already instituted and pending arbitration proceedings in India in respect of the aforesaid guarantees (excluding counter-guarantee 821-02-0009587-G).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment