How So Called 15K Crore International Company Like BLS International Not Only Cheat Its Clients Globally But Also Its Vendors. Judgment of the Delhi High Court Digicall Global VS BLS International Say It All

BLS International Services Ltd., a multinational corporation headquartered in India, has grown into a behemoth in the visa and consular outsourcing sector. As of late 2025, the company’s market capitalization stands at approximately 13,025 crore INR (around $1.5 billion USD), making it a significant player in global administrative services. Founded in 1983, BLS specializes in providing visa application processing, passport services, consular support, and related administrative solutions to governments and diplomatic missions worldwide. It operates in over 66 countries, handling millions of applications annually for clients including embassies of India, Spain, Germany, and others. However, beneath this facade of efficiency and scale lies a pattern of alleged misconduct, including cheating clients through poor service, arbitrary charges, and delays, as well as defrauding vendors by withholding payments and employing legal tactics to evade liability.

This article delves into one such emblematic case: the 2021 Delhi High Court judgment in BLS International Services Ltd. v. Digicall Global Pvt. Ltd. (O.M.P. (COMM) 128/2020), presided over by Justice Vibhu Bakhru. Here, BLS attempted to wriggle out of paying a modest sum to its vendor, Digicall Global Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as Digicall), for call-center services rendered. The case exemplifies how BLS misused judicial processes, filed frivolous challenges, and raised afterthought counterclaims to delay and deny legitimate dues—tactics that, when viewed alongside recent global controversies, paint a picture of systemic fraud. In October 2025, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) imposed a two-year ban on BLS from participating in future tenders, citing court cases and applicant complaints, further underscoring this pattern. We will dissect the Digicall case in exhaustive detail, highlighting BLS’s manipulative strategies, before expanding to their broader global cheating of clients and vendors.

Background on BLS International: From Humble Beginnings to Global Controversies

BLS International began as a small typing and photocopying service in Delhi but pivoted to government outsourcing in the early 2000s. Today, it boasts revenues of over 2,653 crore INR and profits of 640 crore INR, with operations spanning visa centers, e-governance, and banking correspondent services. The company prides itself on partnerships with over 46 client governments, processing more than 200 million applications to date. However, this growth has been marred by accusations of unethical practices.

In Canada, for instance, BLS has faced a barrage of complaints as the exclusive provider of Indian consular services. Applicants report long delays, unresponsive customer service, arbitrary additional fees, and even instances where renewed passports are withheld until extra payments are made. Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are rife with user testimonies labeling BLS a “scam,” with one user in October 2025 decrying how the company is “spoiling India’s name in foreign countries” through fraudulent practices. These issues culminated in the MEA’s debarment order on October 11, 2025, which bars BLS from new contracts with Indian embassies and consulates worldwide due to “allegations including court cases and complaints received from applicants.” The ban triggered an 18% plunge in BLS’s stock price, reflecting investor concerns over the company’s integrity.

Similar grievances echo globally. In 2021, BLS filed complaints against “unsolicited messages” related to its equity shares, hinting at broader reputational damage from alleged stock manipulation or fraud. Users on X have repeatedly called for investigations, with posts in 2025 accusing BLS of scamming Indian students in Canada and questioning how it secured a visa contract in China despite the ban. These patterns of client exploitation—through hidden fees, service deficiencies, and bureaucratic hurdles—mirror BLS’s treatment of vendors, as vividly illustrated in the Digicall case.

The Digicall Global vs. BLS International Case: A Timeline of Deception and Evasion

The dispute between Digicall Global Pvt. Ltd. (a call-center service provider) and BLS International originated from a 2013 agreement tied to BLS’s contract with the Embassy of India in Washington DC. BLS had been awarded a deal on May 17, 2013, to handle visa, consular, and allied processing services (collectively “VISA Services”) for the embassy, catering to applicants from the USA and Canada. Digicall was engaged to manage incoming calls from these regions, a critical component for BLS to fulfill its obligations.

Key Timeline of Events

1. May 17, 2013: BLS secures the VISA Services contract with the Embassy of India, Washington DC.
2. June 1, 2013: Digicall emails BLS, agreeing to provide Call Centre Services for an initial 60 days, extendable by 30 days on mutual terms.
3. May 19, 2013 (noted in records, though chronologically after the award): The Embassy imposes a penalty of $181,852.68 on BLS for deficiencies in VISA Services. BLS later attributed this to Digicall’s alleged shortcomings, but without contemporaneous evidence.
4. September 12, 2013: A formal Agreement is executed between BLS and Digicall for ongoing Call Centre Services.
5. January 15, 2014: BLS terminates the Agreement via email, citing dissatisfaction with service quality. BLS had sent communications expressing complaints but never indicated liability for damages or intent to seek compensation.
6. January 17, 2014: Digicall demands payment of $108,906.11 in outstanding dues. BLS disputes and refuses to pay.
7. November 29, 2014: Digicall files a summary suit (CS(OS) 3723/2014) in the Delhi High Court, seeking ₹65,34,366.60 (equivalent to the disputed amount) as unpaid balance for services rendered.
8. BLS’s Response: BLS files a written statement denying the claims and raises a counterclaim of ₹2,90,64,600 for alleged losses due to Digicall’s deficiencies. Despite this, BLS applies under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the matter to arbitration, invoking the Agreement’s arbitration clause.
9. November 2, 2017: The High Court allows the Section 8 application, referring both the suit and counterclaim to arbitration.
10. March 4, 2020: The Sole Arbitrator issues the impugned award in favor of Digicall.
11. August 25, 2021: BLS challenges the award under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Delhi High Court dismisses the petition, upholding the award.

The Arbitral Award: Justice for Digicall

The Arbitral Tribunal awarded Digicall:

• Principal Amount: $23,366.16 + $4,344 = $27,710.16 for services rendered.
• Pre-Award Interest: 9% per annum from November 29, 2014 (suit filing date) to March 4, 2020 (award date).
• Future Interest: 11% per annum from the award date until realization, if not paid within 30 days.
• Costs: Awarded to Digicall.
• Counterclaims: BLS’s claims rejected outright.

The Tribunal deemed BLS’s withholding of payments “unjustified” and causing “wrongful loss” to Digicall, concluding that the counterclaims were an “afterthought” and “counterblast” to Digicall’s recovery suit.

How BLS Abused, Misused, Misguided, and Misled the Law, Judiciary, and Court

BLS’s tactics in this case reveal a calculated effort to perpetrate financial fraud on Digicall by evading liability through legal maneuvering. Despite admitting to receiving the services, BLS employed delaying strategies, technical loopholes, and unsubstantiated claims to prolong the dispute and avoid payment. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Ground 1: Patent Illegality via Invoice Naming – A Frivolous Technicality

BLS challenged the award as “patently illegal” because Digicall’s invoices were addressed to BLS International FZE, Dubai, UAE—a wholly owned subsidiary of BLS—not BLS itself. BLS argued this made the award unenforceable since the subsidiary wasn’t a party to the arbitration.

• BLS’s Misuse of Law: This was a clear attempt to mislead the court by focusing on form over substance. BLS never disputed that the services were rendered to them, nor claimed they were provided to the subsidiary. In fact, BLS’s own written submissions before the Tribunal admitted that Digicall raised monthly invoices in the subsidiary’s name “for services provided to BLS.” Digicall explained that this was done at BLS’s instance, and invoices were revised accordingly.
• Court’s Rejection: Justice Bakhru dismissed this as meritless, noting BLS could not avoid liability for services it “admittedly received.” The court highlighted that BLS’s argument ignored the Agreement’s essence, constituting an abuse of Section 34(2A) (patent illegality). This tactic misguided the judiciary by wasting court time on a non-issue, delaying justice for Digicall.

Ground 2: Rejection of Counterclaims – Afterthoughts Without Evidence

BLS argued the Tribunal summarily rejected its ₹2,90,64,600 counterclaim without examining evidence of Digicall’s deficiencies, which allegedly caused losses including the Embassy penalty.

• BLS’s Misguidance and Misleading: BLS raised these claims only after Digicall’s suit, without any prior notice to Digicall of potential liability or damages. Communications from BLS expressed dissatisfaction but never suggested Digicall would be held accountable for losses. The counterclaim relied heavily on the $181,852.68 Embassy penalty, but BLS provided no material linking it to Digicall’s services. The penalty was for overall VISA Services deficiencies (including visa issuance, OCI/PIO cards, renunciation certificates, etc.), not specifically call-center issues.
• Further Evasion: BLS had disputed the penalty with the Government of India (GoI) but settled it “without prejudice” for $125,000 via a consent arbitral award on April 28, 2017. This undermined BLS’s narrative, as it showed no proven causation. The Tribunal rightly inferred the counterclaims as reactive “afterthoughts” to counter Digicall’s legitimate demands.
• Court’s Findings: The High Court upheld this, noting the absence of “contemporaneous claims for damages” or notices putting Digicall on alert. BLS’s counsel conceded no prior notice of losses was given. The court deemed the Tribunal’s conclusion neither “perverse” nor “patently illegal,” rejecting the challenge under Sections 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) (public policy). BLS’s tactics misled the court by inflating unproven losses and abusing the arbitration referral—filing counterclaims in court yet pushing for arbitration to prolong proceedings.

By invoking Section 34 on weak grounds, BLS abused the judicial system, forcing Digicall into extended litigation over a relatively small sum ($27,710.16). This exemplifies financial fraud: withholding dues unjustly while deploying legal smokescreens to escape accountability.

Practical Takeaways from the Judgment: Lessons in Vendor Fraud

The Delhi High Court’s decision offers key insights into how companies like BLS exploit vendors:

1. Invoice Mismatches as Evasion Tools: Technical errors like addressee names won’t absolve liability if services are admitted and invoicing was at the payer’s behest.
2. Reactive Counterclaims: Claims raised only post-suit, without prior notices or causation proof, are vulnerable to dismissal as “counterblasts.”
3. Third-Party Penalties: Linking vendor deficiencies to external fines requires concrete evidence; BLS’s failure here exposed their misleading strategy.

Broader Implications: Cheating Clients Globally Mirrors Vendor Fraud

The Digicall case is not isolated. BLS’s global operations have drawn ire for similar deceptions. In Canada, complaints include charging double fees without reason and holding documents hostage—tactics akin to withholding vendor payments. The 2025 MEA ban, stemming from “court cases and complaints,” affects new tenders worldwide, though existing contracts remain. X users have amplified these issues, with calls for immediate bans and accusations of fraud tarnishing India’s image.

BLS’s response? The company claims to investigate concerns but has not addressed specifics, instead focusing on stock disclaimers. This pattern—evading liability through denials, settlements, and legal challenges—suggests a corporate culture of fraud.

Conclusion: Time for Accountability

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in the Digicall case lays bare BLS International’s tactics to cheat vendors: technical loopholes, unsubstantiated counterclaims, and judicial misuse to delay payments. When extrapolated to their global client base, as seen in Canadian complaints and the MEA ban, it reveals a “15K Crore” empire built on exploitation. Governments and regulators must enforce stricter oversight to prevent such entities from undermining trust in international services. Until then, vendors and clients alike remain at risk from BLS’s deceptive playbook.