Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.96 seconds)
Shoghi Communications Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 January, 2011 cites

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Sps Engineering Ltd. on 3 March, 2006

10. Unlike the facts in Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. SPS Engineering Ltd., it cannot be said that no reasons have been given in the instant case for blacklisting the Petitioner. The charge that forgery was committed of the End User Certificate, purportedly issued by the NSG, is a serious matter and could not have been overlooked in the interests of national security. Also, unlike the facts in R. K. Machine Tools and TSL Defence Technology, the FIR registered in the instant case has progressed to a criminal trial which is at the stage of prosecution evidence. Consequently, the reason cited for the MOD for deciding to stop dealing with SCL cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - M Katju - Full Document

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996

Ltd. v. Union of India 2003 IV AD (Delhi) 225, and the decision of the Madras High Court in A. Rajendran v. The General Manager, Thermal Power Station I, Nayveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (decision dated 16th October 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 17517 of 2002). Thirdly, it is submitted that no cogent reasons have been given in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 160 - Cited by 1694 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Mekaster Trading Corporation vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 August, 2003

10. Unlike the facts in Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. SPS Engineering Ltd., it cannot be said that no reasons have been given in the instant case for blacklisting the Petitioner. The charge that forgery was committed of the End User Certificate, purportedly issued by the NSG, is a serious matter and could not have been overlooked in the interests of national security. Also, unlike the facts in R. K. Machine Tools and TSL Defence Technology, the FIR registered in the instant case has progressed to a criminal trial which is at the stage of prosecution evidence. Consequently, the reason cited for the MOD for deciding to stop dealing with SCL cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 45 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. vs Delhi Jal Board & Ors. on 12 August, 2009

6. Mr. H.L. Tiku, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner first submitted that SCL was incorporated only in November 1998 whereas Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5547/07 Page 3 of 8 the criminal case against Mr. Harish Gupta was filed much earlier. The chargesheet was filed in 1996 itself. SCL was therefore nowhere involved in the said criminal case. Secondly, it is submitted that there could be no indefinite blacklisting of the Petitioner from 2005 onwards and this rendered the impugned order wholly arbitrary. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Kavery Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Jal Board (decision dated 14th September 2007 in W.P. (C) No. 5398 of 2007), Saraswati Dynamics (P.)
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - H Kohli - Full Document

R.K. Machine Tools Ltd. & Anr. vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2010

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

A. Rajendran, Managing Partner Of ... vs The General Manager, Thermal Power ... on 16 October, 2003

Ltd. v. Union of India 2003 IV AD (Delhi) 225, and the decision of the Madras High Court in A. Rajendran v. The General Manager, Thermal Power Station I, Nayveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (decision dated 16th October 2003 in W.P. (C) No. 17517 of 2002). Thirdly, it is submitted that no cogent reasons have been given in the impugned order.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A K Rajan - Full Document
1