9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er shall come to an end on 09.11.2014 - Following decision of M/s Kulja Industries Limited Versus Chief Gen. Manager WT. Proj. BSNL & Others [2013 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided partly in favour of petitioner. - WP(C) No.773 ,2858,3132of 2011 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2013 - V K Jain, J. For the Appellant : Mr Akhil Sibal, Ms Ruchi Agnihotri and Mr Narendra M. Sharma and Mr Vishrut Raj, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Sachin Datta, CGSC, Mr Dinesh Sharma, Mr Kartikey and Ms Shruti Aggarwal and Ms Mala, Advs. JUDGEMENT:- PER : V K Jain, J Vide notification dated 24.1.2008 issued by the Director General, Foreign Trade, prohibition on the export of non-basmati rice was lifted to the extent tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterating the memorandum dated 10.11.2010. The writ petition was thereupon amended so as to challenge the memo dated 10.11.2010, the office order dated 11.11.2010 and the order dated 13.4.2011. 2. In case of Amira Foods (India) Ltd., the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3132/2011, after issuance of memorandum dated 10.11.2010, W.P(C) No. 8295/2010 was filed by the said petitioner seeking withdrawal of the blacklisting order as also the subsequent order/ letter dated 29.11.2010 cancelling the IPQC Certificate granted to it. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.2.2011 by passing an order identical to the order passed in W.P(C) No.8325/2010 filed by Emmsons International Ltd. A show cause notice was thereafter issued to the said petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner-companies. Identical statement is made by the learned counsel for Emmsons International Ltd, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3132/2011. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that no duration of the debarring of the petitioner has been fixed in the said order, meaning thereby that it has the effect of permanent black listing/debarring of the petitioner. In Vinay Construction Co. Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Anr. 116 (2005) DLT 14, this Court rejected the contention that there can be indefinite period of blacklisting, holding that since blacklisting carries a very severe consequence and needs to be for a prescribed period. In Writ Petition No.17517 of 2002 titled A. Rajendran vs. The General Manager decided on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
