M/S. ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. versus M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1101 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1101 
- " 
MIS. ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. 
A 
v. 
M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & 
ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 801 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
B 
' 
~ 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.) 
Contract - For setting up electrical transmission lines -
Denial of - On account of lack of technical experience as c 
enumerated under conditions of contract - Held: On facts, 
contract rightly denied. 
Appellant-an electrical manufacturing company, filed 
writ petition challenging the order of respondent No. 1, 
D 
... 
denying to grant the contract for setting up electrical 
transmission lines to it on account of lack of technical 
experience as set out in clause 1.1 of Annexure-A of 
Special Condition of Contract. The petition was 
dismissed by High Court. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
denial of contract was on erroneous interpretation of 
Clause 1.1. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. In the present case, the appellant has not 
completed the lines. Unless the entire line is laid and is 
found to be functioning satisfactorily, it cannot be said 
that there was satisfactory completion of the line. Mere 
G 
surveying, optimizing tower locations, erecting and 
stringing with tension stringing equipment the requisite 
length of transmission lines will not be enough to give the 
necessary technical experience. Completion of a part of 
1101 
H 
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A the line will be of no avail and the entire line from one 
location to another has to be completed before there can 
be said to be satisfactory completion of the line. 
Completion of part of the line has to be totally ignored as 
a line is one integral whole and cannot be divided into 
8 sections. [Paras 19, 21 and 22] [1107-C; 1108-B-C] 
2. It is not correct to say that the words 'Satisfactorily 
Completed' would not govern sub clause (i) of Clause 1.1 
of Annexure-A to the Special Conditions of Contract. A 
C fair reading of the entire Clause 1.1 along with sub clause 
(i) clearly indicates that the requisite technical experience 
requires satisfactorily completion of the requisite length 
of the line. Sub clause (i) is a part of Clause 1.1 and 
hence mere surveyance, optimizing tower locations, 
0 erecting and stringing with tension stringing equipment, 
etc. is not sufficient to give the requisite technical 
experience to the bidder unless such work was 
satisfactorily completed, which means that it was tested 
and found to be functioning satisfactorily. The expression 
'Satisfactory Completion' govern sub clause (i) of Clause 
E 1.1 also. [Paras 20 and 21] [1107-D-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 801 
of 2009. 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.5.2008 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3668/08 
Sudhir Chandra and Rabindra Singh for the Appellants. 
K.K. Venugopal, ATM Rangaranujnam, Pawan Upadhyay, 
G Shiv Mangal Sharma, Puneet Parishar, Utra Babbar, Sharmila 
Upadhyay C.V. Subba Rao and B.K. Prasad Anil Katiyar for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
.. -
• • 
ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. v. POWER 1103 
GRID CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. 
, "' 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned 
judgment dated 26.5.2008 of the Delhi High Court in Writ 
Petition (Civil) No.3668 of 2008. 
3. Heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel for 
B 
the appellant, and Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel 
for the respondent and perused the record. 
4. The appellant Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd., 
(hereinafter as ·EMC') has alleged that it is a leading modern c 
power system company in India and is the first ISO 9001 
certified company in India in Transmission Line Projects. It was 
established in 1951 and carries out such projects in India as 
well as overseas. It filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court 
with the following prayer:-
D 
• 
1 
"To quash the decision taken by the Board of 
Directors in its meeting held on 06.5.2008 with respect to 
not awarding of contract to the petitioner with respect to 
Package A 1, A2 & A7 in spite of the fact that it is L 1, 
E 
technically qualified as per the requirement and more so 
its bid is Rs.16.34 crores less than L2 bidders." 
5. The respondent no.1, the Power Grid Corporation of 
India Ltd. ((hereinafter as 'PGCIL') is a Public Sector 
Undertaking of the Government of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.