C.W.P. No.19512 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19512 of 2008 Decided on :19-11-2008 M/s Rajat Freight Carriers, Ambala ....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India & others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-31), whereby the respondent suspended its dealings with the petitioner with immediate effect till further orders. The reason for suspension of the dealings is that father-in-law of Smt. Rama Kakkar one of the partner of the petitioner-firm, was chargesheeted by CBI in his dealings with the respondents as sole proprietor of the firm i.e. M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar & Sons. It has been found that the petitioner comes under effective influence of M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar & Sons, who are involved in forgery of large scale false and fabricated billing in CHT contracts dishonestly causing heavy wrongful losses to the Government, which has been established in the investigation carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigations. C.W.P. No.19512 of 2008 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 20.12.2006, the action can be taken against the petitioner only if the following conditions are satisfied in terms of para No.29 (d) of the said circular:- (i) Whether the management is common; (ii) Majority interest in the management is held by the partners or directors of banned/suspended firms/companies. (iii) Substantial or majority shares are owned by the banned/suspended firms, their directors/shareholders and by virtue of this it has a controlling voice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations against the petitioner do not fall within the parameters reproduced mentioned in para 29 (d) and therefore, the dealings with the petitioner could not be suspended by respondents, as the petitioner is an independent firm. In response to a question, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the FIR registered against father-in-law Sh.Katasi Ram Kakkar, resident of 11, Kasturba Colony, Ambala Cantt, sole proprietor of M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar & Sons. The said FIR was registered on 12.07.2006, whereas the present firm was registered on 08.09.2006. The residential address of Smt. Rama Kakkar is the same as that of her father-in- law. The address of the father is the same as in another connected petition filed by another daughter-in-law of Sh. Katasi Ram Kakkar. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the order passed by learned Special Judge, Ambala Cantt, paying charges against the accused. Husband of the petitioner is one of the accused. In view of the close relationship of one of C.W.P. No.19512 of 2008 -3- the partners with M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar, an accused in an FIR registered by CBI and the close proximity of time in which the firm was registered shows that the incorporation of the petitioner firm was only to circumvent the bar of business against M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar & Sons. The close relationship, the residential address, the manner of business and the proximity of time in which the firm was registered, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner is nothing, but incorporated to circumvent the bar contained against M/s Katasi Ram Kakkar & Sons. If the corporate veil is lifted, there is no manner of doubt of ingenuineness of the firm and the above conclusions are the natural consequences. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 19th November 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge