TEHRI HYDRO DEVT.CORP. vs ALSTOM HYDRO FRANCE

The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's conclusion that respondent no.2 was qualified for the work of 'erection' at Ghangzhou II, equating 'supervision of erection' with 'erection' under the terms of the ITB. However, the Court found the process of calling two price bids flawed due to lack of clarity, directing the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation to invite fresh bids from both parties to ensure fairness and transparency. The Court emphasized the need for expediency in completing the project while allowing all parties to maintain their rights and contentions.