- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Bank of Baroda (BoB) has announced that it has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Calcutta High Court order in a case regarding a bank guarantee issued by BoB on behalf of Simplex Projects Ltd.Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to consider “appropriate steps” against Bank of Baroda (BoB), including cancelling its...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Bank of Baroda (BoB) has announced that it has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Calcutta High Court order in a case regarding a bank guarantee issued by BoB on behalf of Simplex Projects Ltd.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to consider “appropriate steps” against Bank of Baroda (BoB), including cancelling its banking license, after it was found to have delayed honoring a bank guarantee.
The Calcutta High Court order stated that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) had entered into an agreement with Simplex Projects in 2017 so that it could undertake work at IOCL’s Bongaigaon facility.
To undertake this work, Simplex was required to provide a bank guarantee as a security deposit. An unconditional bank guarantee was furnished by BoB on behalf of Simplex for about Rs 6.97 crore, which was later revoked by IOCL.
“Considering the conduct of the appellants, the RBI should consider what appropriate steps may be taken against the Bank of Baroda, including revoking its license or the authority to carry on banking business, if necessary,” the order dated February 10, issued by Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda had stated.