Shoghi Communications Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 January, 2011
Reliance is placed on the
decision in R.K. Machine Tools Ltd. v. Union of India 2010 III AD
(Del) 191 and the decision dated 26th May 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 1346
of 2010 (TSL Defence Technology P. Ltd. v. Union of India).
Referring to Clause 3.5 of Chapter III of the Defence Procurement
Manual-2006 issued by the MOD, Government of India, Mr. Tiku
submits that the blacklisting had to be for a specified period of time and
further that the decision has to be taken by the appropriate authority
"after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case."
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5547/07 Page 4 of 8
It is submitted that no action was taken for about nine years after filing
of the chargsheet and the CBI suddenly issued a directive in 2005
which led to the impugned order of blacklisting. It is submitted that the
circumstances under which the blacklisting order was passed rendered
it arbitrary and unreasonable. It is submitted that the communication
dated 19th September 2005 wrongly stated that SCL and another sister
company are under trial for forgery/use of end user certificate. In fact
the accused was Mr. Harish Gupta and not SCL. Moreover, SCL was
incorporated only in 1998, two years after the chargesheet was filed
against Mr. Harish Gupta.