Mku Limited And Anr & Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

W.P.(C)/4748/2025HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01020713202523 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA51 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

Held

The Court held that the requirement for a license issued by DPIIT was not unreasonable or arbitrary. The delegation of power to DoC did not mean a license from DoC was equivalent to one from DPIIT for the purpose of the tender's eligibility criteria.

Facts

Petitioners, EOUs, were disqualified from tenders for ballistic helmets and bulletproof jackets because their Industrial Licenses were issued by the Department of Commerce (DoC) instead of the Department of Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (DPIIT). The RFPs required a license issued by DPIIT.

Key Issues

Whether an Industrial License issued by the Department of Commerce (DoC) is a valid substitute for a license issued by the Department of Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (DPIIT) as per tender conditions.

Sections Cited

Section 30, Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 4748/2025
W.P.(C) 4750/2025
W.P.(C) 4755/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 4748/2025 & connected matters

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 28.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 23.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 4748/2025, CM APPLs 21775-21777/2025, CM APPL 47301/2025 & CM APPL 53787/2025 + W.P.(C) 4750/2025, CM APPLs 21780-21782/2025, CM APPL 39747/2025 & CM APPL 53877/2025 + W.P.(C) 4755/2025, CM APPLs 21888-21890/2025 & CM APPL 53870/2025

MKU LIMITED AND ANR

.....Petitioners

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

.....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Ms. Madhavi Divan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Manish Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr. Rajiv Dalal, Mr. Sanjeev Kr Sharma, Mr. Varun Kesharwani, Ms. Dipti Singh Arya and Mr. Sudhir Atri, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. R. Venkatramani, Attorney General with Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC, Ms. Shreya Jetly, Mr. Aakash Pathak (GP), Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocates for UOI alongwith Brig Sidharth Sen, SM, Lt Col Gaurav Chaudhary and Major Anish

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.