Delhi High Court Rejects Paharpur Cooling Review of IOCL Tender; Holds Later Hamon Injunction and Ownership Changes Do Not Erase Bidder’s Past Experience
Delhi High Court Refuses Paharpur Cooling Review Against Hamon Cooling’s Tender Qualification; Finds Past Experience Remains With Corporate Entity Despite Management Changes
Facts
The Delhi High Court considered a review petition filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited seeking review of its earlier judgment dated 23 April 2026 in W.P.(C) 12270/2024. In that earlier judgment, the Court had dismissed Paharpur’s challenge to the declaration of Respondent No. 4 as technically qualified and the L1 bidder in the concerned tender.
The review petition was filed with a delay of 60 days. The Court condoned the delay and proceeded to consider the review on merits.
Paharpur sought review principally on three grounds.
First, it relied upon a subsequent order dated 6 July 2026 passed by the Bombay High Court in John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited & Anr., where an interim injunction had been granted against Respondent No. 4 concerning use of the name/mark “Hamon.”
Second, Paharpur argued that the Delhi High Court had erred in holding that the tender did not require Respondent No. 4 to demonstrate continued ownership of, or access to, proprietary technology and technical know-how.
Third, it contended that the Court had incorrectly distinguished the Supreme Court judgment in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India.
The respondents opposed review, contending that none of these grounds disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were:
- Whether the subsequent Bombay High Court injunction concerning use of the “Hamon” mark constituted a ground to review the earlier Delhi High Court tender judgment.
- Whether the tender required the successful bidder to demonstrate continued ownership of or access to proprietary technology that may have formed part of its historical experience.
- Whether subsequent changes in shareholding, management or group association could erase a corporate entity’s past project experience.
- Whether the Court had incorrectly distinguished New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India.
- Whether the petitioner was, in substance, merely seeking a rehearing or reappreciation of issues already decided on merits.
- Whether the progress of the public project—approximately 80% already completed—was relevant to exercise of review jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Paharpur relied heavily on the Bombay High Court’s order dated 6 July 2026 restraining Respondent No. 4 from using the “Hamon” mark.
It argued that this subsequent development had a direct bearing on Respondent No. 4’s technical eligibility because the bidder had historically derived experience and technology from its association with the Hamon group.
The petitioner also challenged paragraph 18 of the original judgment, where the Delhi High Court had held that the tender did not require continued ownership of any particular technology or technical know-how.
According to Paharpur, the rival bidder ought to have shown continued access to the technology that formed the basis of its earlier experience.
Lastly, Paharpur relied on New Horizons Ltd., contending that the principles concerning experience of consortium or constituent entities should have been applied differently to the facts of the present tender.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents argued that the Bombay High Court order could not justify review because its operation had itself been kept in abeyance.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had, by order dated 27 July 2026, extended the statement that the Single Judge’s injunction would not be acted upon until the next date of hearing, then fixed for 19 August 2026.
They further submitted that the eligibility issue had already been conclusively examined with reference to the tender conditions.
The tender did not require continuity of:
- ownership;
- shareholding;
- management;
- proprietary technology; or
- technical collaboration
as a condition for relying upon completed past experience.
Accordingly, review would merely amount to reopening the merits.
Analysis of the Law
Subsequent Bombay High Court Injunction Was Not Operative
The Delhi High Court first examined the subsequent order relied upon by Paharpur.
The Bombay High Court’s Single Judge had granted an interim injunction against Respondent No. 4 concerning the use of the mark “Hamon.”
However, that order itself contemplated that it would not be acted upon for three weeks, and the Bombay High Court Division Bench subsequently extended that arrangement.
Therefore, as on the date of the Delhi High Court’s review judgment, the injunction was not operational.
The Court held that there was no basis to proceed as if Respondent No. 4 was subject to a presently operative restraint capable of altering the earlier tender decision.
Trademark Dispute and Tender Eligibility Were Legally Distinct
The Court further held that even apart from the injunction being in abeyance, the Bombay proceedings concerned a different legal controversy.
The Bombay case dealt with alleged:
- trademark infringement;
- passing off; and
- entitlement to use the name “Hamon.”
By contrast, the Delhi case concerned whether Respondent No. 4 satisfied the technical eligibility conditions of an IOCL tender and was correctly declared L1.
The two disputes could not be treated as identical merely because they involved overlapping facts concerning the company’s historical association with the Hamon group.
Past Experience Belongs to the Corporate Entity
A central proposition in the judgment concerns the effect of changes in ownership or management on a company’s historical experience.
The Court reaffirmed that Respondent No. 4 had relied upon experience gained through the Mangalore Refinery Project, which it had executed as part of a joint venture with Shriram EPC Limited.
The tender permitted reliance on past completed works of the stipulated nature and value within the qualifying period.
The Court held that subsequent changes in:
- shareholding;
- management; or
- the company’s broader association with the Hamon group
did not, by themselves, erase experience actually acquired by that corporate entity while executing earlier projects.
Thus, corporate experience does not automatically disappear merely because ownership structures later change.
Tender Did Not Require Continued Technology Ownership
Paharpur argued that Respondent No. 4 should have been required to demonstrate continued ownership of, or access to, the proprietary technology associated with its earlier project experience.
The Court held that this issue had already been expressly considered in the original judgment.
The relevant tender clause did not stipulate continuity of proprietary technology, ownership, management or shareholding as an eligibility requirement for reliance upon past experience.
The review petitioner could not point to any patent misreading of the tender terms.
Its argument therefore amounted to asking the Court to adopt a different interpretation of the same tender conditions.
That is impermissible in review.
Review Cannot Become an Appeal in Disguise
The Court reiterated the limited nature of review jurisdiction.
A review is not available merely because a party:
- disagrees with the interpretation adopted;
- seeks a different appreciation of evidence;
- believes a precedent should have been applied differently; or
- wishes to rely upon a subsequent interlocutory order which does not fundamentally alter the original controversy.
The petitioner had to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or some comparable review ground.
The Court found none.
New Horizons Distinguished Again
Paharpur’s third argument concerned New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India.
The Court noted that it had already examined this precedent in paragraphs 35 to 37 of its original judgment.
New Horizons concerned the manner in which experience of constituent entities of a joint venture or consortium should be considered for tender eligibility.
The present controversy was materially different.
Here, the question was whether the same corporate entity could rely upon works previously executed by it, despite subsequent changes in its shareholding and management.
The Court therefore held that its earlier distinction of New Horizons disclosed no error apparent.
A party’s disagreement with how a precedent has been distinguished does not itself constitute a review ground.
80% of Public Project Already Completed
The progress of the underlying project was also significant.
When the original writ petition had been dismissed in April 2026, the Court had noted that approximately 80% of the awarded work had already been completed by Respondent No. 4.
That factual position remained undisputed at the review stage.
The Court held that a subsequent interlocutory development could not be used to unsettle findings relating to an ongoing public project where no reviewable error had otherwise been demonstrated.
Precedent Analysis
New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
Paharpur relied upon this Supreme Court judgment to contend that technical experience must be assessed with reference to the entities and resources that actually generated that experience.
The Delhi High Court distinguished the precedent.
It held that New Horizons dealt with attribution of experience among constituent members of a joint venture or consortium.
The present case dealt with a single continuing corporate entity relying upon its own past project experience, notwithstanding later changes in management and shareholding.
The factual and legal settings were therefore materially different.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that all three grounds urged by Paharpur ultimately sought to reopen conclusions already reached in April 2026.
The Bombay High Court injunction was neither final nor operative and arose from a trademark dispute distinct from tender eligibility.
The tender conditions themselves did not require continuity of technology ownership or management structure.
Respondent No. 4’s historical experience in executing the qualifying project remained attributable to it as a corporate entity.
Finally, New Horizons had already been consciously distinguished and no obvious legal error had been demonstrated.
The review jurisdiction could not therefore be used to conduct a second merits hearing.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no other ground warranting review of its judgment dated 23 April 2026.
The Review Petition was accordingly dismissed, along with the pending interim application.
The original judgment upholding Respondent No. 4’s technical qualification and L1 status in the IOCL tender therefore remained undisturbed.
Case Details
Case: Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: Review Petition No. 327/2026 in W.P.(C) 12270/2024
Judges: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Date: 14 August 2026
Result: Review petition dismissed; earlier judgment sustaining Respondent No. 4’s technical qualification and L1 status in the IOCL tender remains undisturbed.
