Interim protection to operate contracts entails an absolute obligation to pay contractual dues during the pendency of litigation.

The Petitioner was awarded contracts to provide catering services in four trains for a five-year period

Upon the expiry of the original term on June 20, 2019, respondent-IRCTC issued "impugned letters" on December 20, 2019, refusing renewal due to the Petitioner’s failure to meet minimum guaranteed performance standards

The Petitioner challenged these letters in December 2019 and obtained interim orders allowing them to continue operations pending litigation

During the pendency of the suit, IRCTC alleged that the Petitioner defaulted on license fees amounting to approximately ₹5,30,00,000

By February 2026, the renewed periods—had they been granted—also expired

It was further revealed that the Petitioner had simultaneously approached the City Civil Court, Calcutta, for similar relief under "wrong legal advice"

The Petitioner eventually withdrew from operations by March 2026

1. Whether the respondents are entitled to recover outstanding license fees for the period the Petitioner operated under the Court's interim protection

2. Whether a party can continue to provide services under an interim court order without fulfilling the underlying contractual financial obligations

The Court applied the principle of contractual reciprocity and the equitable nature of interim reliefs. The court noted that interim orders mandating performance "in terms of the subject contracts" inherently imply a reciprocal obligation to make payments as per those contracts

the court relied on the principle that a litigant cannot enjoy the benefits of an interim stay or mandatory injunction while simultaneously evading the financial liabilities attached to the exercise of those rights

The Court observed that while the primary challenge to the non-renewal letters had become largely academic due to the passage of time and the Petitioner's withdrawal from the trains, the issue of financial liability remained live

The Court reasoned that the interim orders dated December 24, 2019, which permitted the Petitioner to continue catering services, were explicitly "in terms of the contract"

Consequently, the Petitioner could not selectively enjoy the right to operate without the corresponding duty to pay the license fee

The Court rejected any implicit contention that the operation under court orders exempted the Petitioner from contractual dues, especially since the Petitioner did not deny the liability to pay but merely claimed (without sufficient proof) that payments had been made

The Court granted IRCTC the liberty to take legal steps to recover said amounts

The interim orders were effectively vacated as the renewed contract periods had expired and the Petitioner had already withdrawn from service