9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor Undertakings (PSUs) i.e. MMTC, STC and PEC. The petitioners before this Court entered into separate tripartite agreements with the overseas buyers and one of the PSUs named in the notification and exported rice in terms of the said tripartite agreement. Vide order dated 10.11.2010, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, directed the above three (3) PSUs not to transact any business with the petitioners. Based on the aforesaid memorandum, an Office Order was issued, debarring the petitioners from all future transactions not only with the aforesaid three (3) PSUs, but all other organizations. W.P(C) No.8325/2010 came to be filed by Emmsons International Ltd, challenging the aforesaid memorandum / order. Vide order dated 14.1.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier order dated 10.11.2010. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid petitioner is impugning the memorandum dated 10.11.2010 as well as the order dated 25.4.2011. 3. Emmsons International Ltd was also served with a show cause notice on 14.3.2011 and after considering its reply and giving an oral hearing to its representatives, an order dated 26.4.2011 was passed reviving the order dated 10.11.2010. The aforesaid petitioner has also challenged the memorandum dated 10.11.2010 as well as the subsequent order dated 26.4.2011. 4. After extensive arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) Nos.773/2011 and 3132/2011 states that the petitioners would be satisfied, if without adjudicating upon the other contentions raised in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner did not specify the period of blacklisting, quashed the said order, thereby upholding the contention that blacklisting could not be for an indefinite period. 6. The decision in Vinay Construction (supra) was followed by this Court in Sabharwal Medicos Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 7369/2011, decided on 25.09.2013. Recently in M/s Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief Gen. Manager W.P. Project BSNL and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8944/2013 decided on 04.10.2013, the Apex Court noted that debarment is never permanent and the period of debarment invariably depends upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. 7. Considering the legal proposition laid down in the above-referred cases and taking into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
