Interim relief in arbitration denied where renewal clause was only enabling and public interest favoured a fresh contract.

A renewal clause in the parking policy was treated as an enabling provision, not an enforceable right to extend the licence. The Court held that the Railway Administration was generally required to avoid extension of an existing contract and to proceed with a fresh contract before expiry, subject to administrative conditions. Applying the test for interim relief, it found no sufficient basis for interference because a new contractor had already been selected, public interest would be prejudiced by extension, and any loss to the appellant could be compensated in money. Accordingly, the challenge to refusal of interim protection under Section 9, as well as interference under Section 37, failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against refusal of interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, in particular, whether the existing contract could be extended on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The contract clause permitting renewal up to a limited period was held to be only an enabling provision and not an enforceable right in favour of the licensee. The parking policy required the Railway Administration, as a general rule, to avoid extension of an existing contract and to ensure a fresh contract before expiry, subject to the stated administrative conditions. The precedent relied upon by the appellant was distinguished because it arose in a different factual and contractual setting and did not involve a clause like the present policy provision. For grant of interim relief, the relevant considerations were prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The Court found that a new contractor had already been selected, public interest would be adversely affected by granting relief, and the appellant could be compensated monetarily if he ultimately succeeded.

Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of interim relief failed and no interference was warranted with the order declining extension of the contract.

---