A contractual five-year term creates no enforceable right to renewal or further extension.

The Appellant was awarded a five-year contract for the upgradation, maintenance and management of the AC Upper Class Waiting Room at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai, along with allied passenger facilities.

He invested approximately ₹40,00,000 in the project and claimed that no complaints had been made regarding his performance during the contractual period.

Relying on Railway Board policies, including the Delhi Division Model and Circular No. 11 of 2022, the Appellant sought renewal for a further five years.

While his representations remained undecided, the Respondents floated a fresh tender. The Respondents granted two short-term extensions, but at enhanced licence fees.

The Appellant therefore sought interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition on 3 August 2026, principally holding that the Appellant had no enforceable right to a further extension. The present appeal was filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act.

Whether the Appellant’s contract was governed by Clause 8.1(v) of Railway Board Circular No. 11 of 2022, thereby entitling him to a contractual duration of ten years or a further five-year extension.

Whether the Appellant could claim renewal or extension of the contract as a matter of right on the basis of the Delhi Division Model, Railway Board policies, legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, or the Appellant’s investment and satisfactory performance.

Whether the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible scope of proceedings under Section 9 by making findings on the disputed contractual issues while refusing interim protection.

Whether the impugned order disclosed any error warranting appellate interference under Section 37(1)(b).

The Court applied Sections 9 and 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governing interim measures and appeals from orders granting or refusing such measures.

It relied on Clause 8 of Railway Board Circular No. 11 of 2022, which prescribed a five-year duration for “AC Waiting Hall Management” under Clause 8.1(iii), while the ten-year period under Clause 8.1(v)(b) applied only to pay-and-use toilets operated under the ROMT model.

Clause 9 of the Circular further provided that extensions of contracts awarded through e-auction would normally not be permitted, save for temporary extensions, generally not exceeding three months, in specified circumstances.

The Court also relied on M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corridor (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1001, for the principle that appellate intervention in arbitration matters is narrowly circumscribed and is not justified merely because another interpretation of the facts or contract is possible.

The Court held that the Appellant had incorrectly relied on Clause 8.1(v) of Circular No. 11 of 2022. That provision concerned pay-and-use toilets, whereas the Appellant’s contract expressly related to AC Waiting Hall Management, which fell under Clause 8.1(iii) and carried a five-year contractual duration.

The contractual scope and the applicable policy therefore did not create any entitlement to an additional five-year term. The two extensions already granted were temporary extensions contemplated by the policy and did not establish a right of renewal.

Although the Appellant’s expectation arising from his investment and performance was understandable, the fixed contractual term and the discretionary nature of any extension prevented such expectation from becoming an enforceable right.

The Court further found that the Single Judge had considered the relevant contractual and policy issues without exceeding the scope of Section 9, and that no error warranting interference under Section 37 was demonstrated.

The legitimate expectation arising from his investment and satisfactory performance could not override the contractual terms or confer a right to renewal.

Finding no legal or factual error in the order refusing interim relief under Section 9, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal under Section 37(1)(b), with no order as to costs.