This website is only for informational purposes. Visitors are requested to note that the information is intended to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Juris Corp does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation. The reader must not consider the information contained herein to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship, must not rely on information provided herein and must seek independent advice. Transmission, receipt or use of any information on this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this website.
Furthermore, Juris Corp does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this web site. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to inherent risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending e-mail over the internet.
By clicking on the "I understand and agree" button below, the user acknowledges that:
We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she must seek independent legal advice.
Indian JurisprudenceThe Delhi High Court considered a question relating to enforceability of LoC in Lucent Technologies Inc. vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. . Relying on the principles laid down in various international judgments, the Hon’ble court was of a view that “the circumstances and documents do not indicate that the parties intended to create any legal relations. The very terms of the letter dated 13th September, 2000, the term sheet enclosed therewith and the response of the plaintiff as contained in letters of comfort dated 27th September, 2000 and 30th November, 2000 are a strong indicator in this regard. Both use phrases and concepts having clear technical legal significance and do not manifest any intent that a final and concluded contract had been entered into. In view of the above discussion, it, therefore, has to be held that the communications placed before this court do not contain the kind of assent required to make for a binding contract.” Therefore, the issuer was not under any financial obligation to pay any amount under the agreement between the borrower and the bank.