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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more