Skip to main content

Govt can't blacklist private firm without show cause notice: Delhi High Court

A private firm cannot be barred or blacklisted from doing business with the government or its agencies without a proper show cause notice as such actions have "serious" consequences, the Delhi High Court has said.

"It is an undisputed proposition of law that since an order debarring a person from doing business with the government or its agencies carries serious civil consequences, no such order can be passed without giving notice to him, requiring him to show cause against the proposed debarring/blacklisting," Justice V K Jain said.

The court's observation came in a verdict by which it quashed a circular of Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

DDA blacklisted M/s Thermo Blow Engineers, engaged in manufacturing and supply of sports and fitness equipment, from taking part in future tenders on the ground that it supplied faulty belts and decks for the treadmills in 2012.

DDA, in one of letters, alleged that due to faulty spares, "jerk was felt during workout of treadmill and there were chances of the user getting injured during the workout".

Seeking replacement of equipment, DDA issued a notice to the firm saying "... you (company) are therefore informed that why not actions should be initiated as deemed fit."

DDA followed up its notice, which did not indicate the proposed action, by issuing a circular on August 7, 2012 to debar the firm from taking part in future tenders for an indefinite period.

"It would, thus, be seen that there was no reference to the proposed debarring/blacklisting in the above-referred communication... In any case, the petitioner could not have taken this communication as an opportunity to explain his position qua the proposed blacklisting/debarring. The notice issued to the petitioner does not specify the action DDA proposes to take against it," the court said.

Artcile referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-04/news/39740817_1_show-cause-notice-dda-delhi-development-authority

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more