Raipur
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a first appeal filed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) through the Chief Electoral Officer, upholding a commercial court order that directed the authorities to pay ₹69,69,375 along with interest to a vendor for generator supplies during the 2013 assembly and 2014 Lok Sabha elections in Kondagaon district.
A division bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sushma Sawant delivered the ruling on 26 September 2026, affirming the judgment of the Commercial Court (District Level), Nava Raipur. The vendor, M/s Nilesh Tent House and Light Decoration, Jagdalpur, was awarded work orders in October 2013 and March 2014 by the Kondagaon district election officer to supply tents, lights, sound systems, and generators. After the elections, the vendor submitted total bills amounting to ₹1.12 crore.
However, the election authorities released only partial payments and subsequently rejected the remaining claims in March 2016, contending under Clause 12 of the tender notice that rent for generators was payable solely for periods of actual usage.
The firm filed a civil suit for recovery before the Commercial Court, which partially decreed the claim in March 2019. The lower court held that generators serve as a standby power source and that deploying them on-site in ready-to-use condition fulfilled the contract requirements.
It directed the election authorities and state departments to jointly and severally pay ₹69.69 lakh for generator rentals along with 6.75% interest per annum from 31 March 2016. Challenging the commercial court decree, the ECI argued before the high court that contractual conditions must be strictly interpreted based on actual operational hours and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Rejecting the appellant’s arguments, the high court held that approval of rates on a per-day basis meant contractual liability accrued upon the deployment and availability of generators at designated sites. The bench ruled that interpreting “actual usage” mechanically to deny agreed daily rentals once equipment was installed on-site was unsustainable. The court confirmed that the suit filed in March 2019 was well within the three-year limitation period calculated from the rejection order of 31 March 2016.
