The Delhi High Court upheld its earlier finding that a bidder’s past project experience remains valid despite subsequent changes in shareholding or management, and clarified that an interlocutory injunction granted by another court cannot be a basis for reviewing a tender-eligibility decision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, challenged the declaration by Respondent No.4 (a bidder) that it was technically qualified and the L1 bidder for a public tender. The challenge was filed through W.P.(C.) No. 12270/2024, which the Court dismissed on 23 April 2026, holding that the tender conditions permitted reliance on past completed works irrespective of later changes in shareholding or management.
Key Facts
- The tender required bidders to demonstrate relevant experience completed within a prescribed qualifying period.
- Respondent No.4 relied on its participation in the Mangalore Refinery Project, executed as a joint venture with Shriram EPC Limited.
- Approximately 80 % of the awarded work had already been executed at the time of the Court’s 23 April 2026 decision.
- The appellant argued that a subsequent order dated 06 July 2026 by the High Court of Bombay, granting an injunction in an unrelated trademark dispute (John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited & Anr.), should affect the eligibility assessment.
- The Bombay order was stayed for three weeks and later extended by a Division Bench order dated 27 July 2026, further extending the stay until 19 August 2026.
- The appellant also contended that the Delhi High Court erred in interpreting paragraph 18 of its own judgment, asserting that the tender required continued ownership of proprietary technology.
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. to support its view.
Procedural History
- 23 April 2026: Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition (W.P.(C.) No. 12270/2024), declaring Respondent No.4 technically qualified and the L1 bidder.
- Post-23 April 2026: The appellant filed Review Petition Rev. Pet. 327/2026 seeking review of the 23 April judgment.
- 06 July 2026: Single Judge, High Court of Bombay, granted an injunction in John Cockerill Hamon SA v. Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited & Anr.
- 27 July 2026: Division Bench, High Court of Bombay, extended the stay of the injunction until 19 August 2026.
- 07 August 2026: Review petition application for condonation of 60-day delay (CM APPL. 47181/2026) filed.
- 14 August 2026: Judgment pronounced; condonation of delay allowed and review petition dismissed.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought (i) setting aside of the 23 April 2026 judgment, (ii) declaration that Respondent No.4 was not technically qualified, and (iii) direction that the tender be re-evaluated in light of the Bombay injunction and alleged change in shareholding.
The Legal Issue
Whether an interlocutory injunction granted by a different High Court in an unrelated trademark dispute can be treated as operative for the purpose of reviewing a Delhi High Court judgment on tender eligibility, and whether a change in shareholding or management of a bidder defeats the reliance on past project experience under the tender conditions.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Relied on the Bombay injunction dated 06 July 2026, arguing that it materially affected Respondent No.4’s ability to use the “Hamon” mark and therefore its eligibility.
- Contended that the Delhi High Court erred in paragraph 18 of its 23 April 2026 judgment by ignoring a requirement that bidders demonstrate continued ownership of proprietary technology.
- Invoked New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. to argue that experience of constituent entities of a joint venture must be scrutinised for continuity.
For the Respondent
- Asserted that the Bombay order was merely interlocutory, expressly stayed for three weeks and later extended, rendering it non-operative and unrelated to the tender eligibility issue.
- Emphasised that the tender conditions did not require continuity of ownership, shareholding, or technology; past experience remained valid.
- Highlighted that the review jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit re-appraisal of factual findings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first noted that the Bombay injunction was issued in a separate civil suit concerning passing-off and trademark infringement. It stressed that the order was expressly stayed for three weeks and subsequently extended, meaning it was not operative at the time of the review. Consequently, the order could not be treated as a factual determination affecting Respondent No.4’s eligibility.
"The order dated 06.07.2026 itself contemplated that it would not be acted upon for a period of three weeks."
The Court then examined the tender documents. The eligibility clause allowed bidders to rely on past completed works within the qualifying period, without imposing a condition of continued ownership of proprietary technology or unchanged shareholding. The Court held that the experience accrued by Respondent No.4 in the Mangalore Refinery Project, even though executed under a joint-venture arrangement, remained admissible.
Regarding the appellant’s reliance on New Horizons Ltd., the Court distinguished that case on factual grounds: the Supreme Court dealt with the aggregation of experience of constituent entities of a consortium, whereas the present dispute concerned a single corporate entity whose internal composition had changed. The distinction was deemed appropriate and not erroneous.
Finally, the Court reiterated the limited scope of review under Article 226. A review petition cannot be used to re-argue merits or to introduce new evidence; it is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Since none of the appellant’s grounds satisfied this threshold, the petition was dismissed.
The Verdict
The Review Petition (Rev. Pet. 327/2026) was dismissed in its entirety. The Court allowed the condonation of a 60-day filing delay (CM APPL. 47181/2026) and disposed of the pending interim application. No monetary or injunctive relief was granted. The original finding that Respondent No.4 was technically qualified and the L1 bidder stands affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interlocutory Orders in Other Forums Do Not Alter Tender Decisions
- Practitioners must treat injunctions or stays granted in unrelated proceedings as non-operative for the purpose of reviewing procurement decisions.
- A stay or injunction that is expressly suspended cannot be used to claim that a bidder’s eligibility is compromised.
Shareholding or Management Changes Do Not Nullify Past Experience
- Tender documents that permit reliance on completed works will continue to do so even if the bidder undergoes a change in ownership or management, unless the tender expressly conditions eligibility on continuity.
- Lawyers should scrutinise the tender clauses carefully; a blanket prohibition on post-award changes is required to defeat past experience.
Review Jurisdiction Remains Strictly Limited
- Review under Article 226 is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it is not a substitute for an appeal on merits.
- Parties should ensure that any ground raised in a review petition is a clear legal error, not a re-argument of factual findings.
