{"id":130505,"date":"2009-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-05T15:51:41","modified_gmt":"2015-03-05T10:21:41","slug":"ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 273 of 2009()\n\n\n1. M\/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PUBLIC\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER'S TENDER COMMITTEE,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n4. SREE DHANYA CONSTRUCTIONS,REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU\n\nThe Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :26\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                  J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &\n                         V.GIRI, J.\n           -------------------------\n                 W.A.No.273 of 2009\n           -------------------------\n          Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009.\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
GIRI, J.\n<\/p>\n
         The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35534\/08, which was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the learned single Judge as per the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment dated 28.1.2009, is the appellant<\/p>\n
herein.\n<\/p>\n
         2. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 notice<\/p>\n
inviting tenders for the work involving improvements to<\/p>\n
the Alappuzha-Kuravilangad from Thanneermukkam-<\/p>\n
Kuravilangad.   The tender was to be submitted in two<\/p>\n
sealed covers, one cover for the technical offer and the<\/p>\n
other for financial offer.    The technical bid was to be<\/p>\n
opened by the Superintending Engineer and to be<\/p>\n
examined by the Chief Examiner (Tender Committee).<\/p>\n
Qualified tenderers will be intimated and the financial bids<\/p>\n
of the pre-qualified bidders alone are to be opened after<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                             :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nintimating the qualified bidders. Going by the facts as<\/p>\n
contained in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent, three bids were received from the petitioner,<\/p>\n
4th respondent and one Kerala State Construction<\/p>\n
Corporation Limited. The 4th respondent alone was pre-<\/p>\n
qualified and accordingly the financial bid of the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent was to be opened and considered. In other<\/p>\n
words, the petitioner was not pre-qualified and it is,<\/p>\n
therefore, that the writ petition was filed praying for the<\/p>\n
following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)   To issue a writ of mandamus or other
\n            appropriate writ, order or direction directing
\n            the respondents 1 to 3 to pre-qualify the
\n            petitioner for the work covered by Ext.P5 and
\n            award the work to the petitioner firm if the
\n            petitioner has quoted the lowest bid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)   To declare that the petitioner firm is entitled
\n            to be pre-qualified for the work covered by
\n            Ext.P5 in view of the experience certificate
\n            produced by one of the partners of the firm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)   To issue a writ of mandamus or other
\n            appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
\n            the 1st respondent to open the price bid of<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                              :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n            the petitioner firm and to award the work
\n            covered by Ext.P5 to the petitioner firm, if
\n            the petitioner firm has quoted the lowest bid.\n<\/p>\n
      (d)   To issue a writ of mandamus or other
\n            appropriate    writ,     order or    direction
\n            restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from
\n            awarding the work covered by Ext.P5 to the
\n            4th respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      (e)   To order the cost of the proceedings under
\n            Rule 157 of the Kerala High Court Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      (f)   To issue such other and further reliefs as
\n            may be prayed for from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
         3. Counter affidavits were filed by respondents 1<\/p>\n
and   4.   The    stand    taken     by   the   1st  respondent<\/p>\n
Superintending Engineer was to the effect that Clause 1.9<\/p>\n
(b) of Ext.P5 made it clear that each bidder should have<\/p>\n
achieved a financial turnover amount of Rs.1565 lakhs in<\/p>\n
his name and that this necessarily referred to the financial<\/p>\n
turnover of the tenderer, who is a bidder in the case. The<\/p>\n
financial statement filed by the petitioner, which is a firm<\/p>\n
as the bidder, was in relation to one of the partners of the<\/p>\n
firm. That this did not satisfy the conditions in the tender<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                          :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nnotification and consequently, the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
qualified. The learned single Judge took note of the fact<\/p>\n
that the petitioner-bidder was a firm consisting of three<\/p>\n
partners, one of whom was Sri.T.K.Rajan. The financial<\/p>\n
statement, as also the experience statement produced by<\/p>\n
the petitioner was in relation to the turnover achieved by<\/p>\n
Sri.T.K.Rajan, one of the partners of the firm.       The<\/p>\n
experience certificate produced also related to a partner<\/p>\n
and not to the bidder firm and this, the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge concluded, was not sufficient to pre-qualify the<\/p>\n
petitioner as a bidder.    Thus, the stand taken by the<\/p>\n
respondents in not pre-qualifying the petitioner was<\/p>\n
upheld by the learned single Judge, who dismissed the<\/p>\n
writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.<\/p>\n
          4. We heard Mr.Pathrose Mathai, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel along with Mr.Murali Purushothaman for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent and Mr.K.L.Varghese for the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                            :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5.   Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
contended, with reference to the decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in New Horisons Limited and another v. Union of<\/p>\n
India and others {[1995] 1 scc 478} that a partnership<\/p>\n
firm may claim the experience of the partners who<\/p>\n
constitute the firm. Therefore, the experience and the<\/p>\n
turnover achieved by the partners of the firm can be<\/p>\n
availed of as the requisite experience required of the firm.<\/p>\n
The experience and turnover of the partners and the firm<\/p>\n
are synonymous. The learned single Judge distinguished<\/p>\n
the decision in New Horisons Limited, on the premise<\/p>\n
that   the  tender    conditions    which  came    up    for<\/p>\n
consideration in New Horisons Limited did not apparently<\/p>\n
insist on either the requisite financial turnover or the<\/p>\n
requisite experience in the name of the bidder as one of<\/p>\n
its conditions, unlike in the present case where there is an<\/p>\n
insistence on the requisite financial turnover and the<\/p>\n
experience being related to the bidder itself.<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                           :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended<\/p>\n
that the Supreme Court in the case of New Horisons<\/p>\n
Limited was concerned with a joint venture corporation<\/p>\n
and this in essence was the same as that of a firm and<\/p>\n
that it has been specifically held that the experience and<\/p>\n
the financial turnover of one of the partners who<\/p>\n
constitute the firm, which in turn, is a bidder can be<\/p>\n
availed by the bidder itself for the purpose of contending<\/p>\n
that it should be treated as pre-qualified.         Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant may be right in contending so.<\/p>\n
But acceptance of this proposition as such, may not<\/p>\n
improve the case of the appellant. What is noteworthy is<\/p>\n
that the financial turnover and the experience put forward<\/p>\n
by the appellant\/writ petitioner, along with its tender,<\/p>\n
actually relates to a firm M\/s.T.K.Rajan and does not<\/p>\n
actually relate to one of the partners of the appellant-firm<\/p>\n
Sri.T.K.Rajan In other words, what has been put forward<\/p>\n
by the appellant firm, by way of financial turnover and the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                           :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nrequisite experience in terms of the tender notification is<\/p>\n
that relatable to M\/s.T.K.Rajan, which is a firm, though<\/p>\n
Sri.T.K.Rajan, one of the partners of the appellant\/firm, is<\/p>\n
the major share holder of the firm M\/s.T.K.Rajan. Even<\/p>\n
assuming that the appellant\/firm will be entitled to avail<\/p>\n
of the financial turnover as also the experience of one of<\/p>\n
its individual partners, that will not enable the appellant<\/p>\n
to avail of the financial turnover or the technical<\/p>\n
experience of M\/s.T.K.Rajan (Firm), because the latter<\/p>\n
obviously is not a partner of the appellant-firm. We also<\/p>\n
find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
4th respondent that a firm cannot be a partner of another<\/p>\n
firm and obviously therefore, since the Firm M\/s.T.K.Rajan<\/p>\n
cannot be a partner of the firm Concord Construction<\/p>\n
Company-the appellant, the experience or turnover of<\/p>\n
M\/s.T.K.Rajan (Firm) cannot be availed of or made use of<\/p>\n
by the appellant-firm, for the purpose of pre-qualifying<\/p>\n
for the work in question.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                               :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          7.    We consider it appropriate to refer to the<\/p>\n
facts pleaded by the appellant in paragraph 6 of the reply<\/p>\n
affidavit filed in the appeal. The same reads as follows:<\/p>\n
             “It is further submitted that Mr. T.K.Rajan is the
\n      major Partner of the firm M\/s.T.K.Rajan       The other
\n      partners are his two sons. Mr. T.K.Rajan holds 60% of
\n      the share and his two sons hold 20% each share of
\n      the firm. The annual turn over of business of civil
\n      contract works executed by Mr. T.K.Rajan, as the
\n      major partner going by his 60% share itself come to
\n      much more than the cost of the present work for
\n      which the tender has been floated. It fully satisfies
\n      the tender conditions. Applying the principles of the
\n      decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New
\n      Horizons case the financial turnover in respect of
\n      M\/s.T.K.Rajan produced by the appellant for pre-
\n      qualification can be constructed as the financial
\n      turnover of Mr.T.K.Rajan, partner of the appellant
\n      firm to the extent of his 60% share in M\/s.T.K.Rajan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Therefore,     by  virtue  of   the  financial  turnover
\n      furnished by the appellant, the appellant is qualified
\n      to be awarded the work, particularly when the
\n      appellant is the lowest bidder. It is understood that
\n      the bid of the 4th respondent is Rs.2.5 Crores higher
\n      than that of the appellant. Further, as per the norms
\n      there should be competitive tenders and as per the
\n      inveterate practice in the Department there shall be<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                               :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n      more than one pre-qualified bidder. The averments
\n      in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the
\n      financial  turnover    of   M\/s.T.K.Rajan cannot   be
\n      reckoned as qualification of the appellant for pre-
\n      qualification is incorrect and baseless”.<\/p>\n
          8. In the light of the specific stand taken by the<\/p>\n
appellant, as is evident from the above, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
appellant itself was trying to avail the benefit of the<\/p>\n
turnover     and     also    the     experience  of    the  firm<\/p>\n
M\/s.T.K.Rajan for the purpose of bidding for the work in<\/p>\n
question. This is impermissible.\n<\/p>\n
          9. In the result, we also concur with the view<\/p>\n
taken by the learned single Judge that the decision of the<\/p>\n
1st respondent, not to pre-qualify the appellant\/petitioner<\/p>\n
does not warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
          10. After hearing the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
at the stage of admission, we had passed an interim order<\/p>\n
on 5.2.2009 to the following effect:<\/p>\n
             “Respondents want to take instructions.<\/p>\n
             Respondents are directed to open the bid of
\n      the petitioner also and inform the court directly the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                             :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n      amount bid by the petitioner and the respondent for
\n      information of the court only and it can be
\n      submitted in a sealed cover. Post on 11.2.2009. No
\n      agreement shall be executed before 11.2.2009.”<\/p>\n
          11. Pursuant to the said order, the financial bid<\/p>\n
of the appellant was also opened and we found that the<\/p>\n
appellant had quoted a sum of Rs.14,65,59,970\/-. We<\/p>\n
are told by the government pleader that the bid quoted by<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent was in excess of Rs.17 Crores. It is<\/p>\n
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
there is a difference of more than 2.5 crores in the bids<\/p>\n
quoted by the appellant and the 4th respondent and<\/p>\n
therefore, acceptance of the bid of the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
would entail a loss of more Rs.2.5 crores, insofar as the<\/p>\n
State is concerned.      We take note of the fact that the<\/p>\n
Department is yet to take a decision as to whether the bid<\/p>\n
quoted by the 4th respondent should be accepted and<\/p>\n
whether the contract should be awarded in favour of the<\/p>\n
4th respondent. But, we take note of the further fact that<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                           :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
\neven according to the 1st respondent, there were only<\/p>\n
three bidders and ultimately only one was pre-qualified.<\/p>\n
It is up to the Government to take a decision.        Our<\/p>\n
attention was invited to the Government Order, G.O.(MS)<\/p>\n
No.87\/PW & T dated 7.7.1987, wherein it is stipulated<\/p>\n
that there should be a minimum of four pre-qualified<\/p>\n
contractors to ensure fair and reasonable competition and<\/p>\n
in the alternative an open tender system should be<\/p>\n
resorted to. Respondents 1 to 3 shall consider whether it<\/p>\n
will be advisable for the Government, in public interest to<\/p>\n
proceed to accept the bid offered by the 4th respondent,<\/p>\n
which seems to be significantly higher (difference being<\/p>\n
Rs.2.5 crores) than the bid quoted by the appellant. It is<\/p>\n
up to the Government to take note of these facts and then<\/p>\n
take   a  further   decision     as to whether,    in  the<\/p>\n
circumstances, it may not be advisable to go in for an<\/p>\n
open tender especially taking note of that fact that only<\/p>\n
one among the bidders is pre-qualified. We refrain from<\/p>\n
W.A.No.273 of 2009<\/p>\n
                            :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nissuing any specific direction to the Government in this<\/p>\n
regard in circumstances where the reliefs prayed for by<\/p>\n
the appellant\/petitioner were essentially confined to the<\/p>\n
decision taken by the respondents not to pre-qualify the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        Subject to the above directions, the writ appeal is<\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      (J.B. KOSHY)
\n                                    ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                         (V.GIRI)
\n                                           JUDGE
\nsk\/<\/p>\n
           \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                    P.S. to Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 273 of 2009() 1. M\/S.CONCORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,PUBLIC … Respondent 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER’S TENDER COMMITTEE, 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE 4. SREE DHANYA CONSTRUCTIONS,REPRESENTED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2074,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009"},"wordCount":2074,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009","name":"M\/S.Concord Construction ... vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-05T10:21:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-concord-construction-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Concord Construction … vs The Superintending Engineer on 26 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}