Liabilities arising under interim orders must be discharged as per contractual terms upon expiration of the renewed period.

The petitioner was awarded a 5-year License Agreement by the respondent-Railways/IRCTC for catering services in a specific train

Upon the expiry of the original term on June 20, 2019, IRCTC declined to renew the contract, citing the petitioner's failure to meet minimum guaranteed performance standards

The petitioner challenged this non-renewal in December 2019, and the Court granted an interim order on December 24, 2019, allowing the petitioner to continue services during the pendency of the litigation

By May 2026, the hypothetical "renewed period" of the contract had also expired (March 1, 2026), rendering the primary challenge to non-renewal infructuous

The surviving dispute pertained to the recovery of license fees for the period the petitioner operated under the court's interim protection

Whether the respondent-IRCTC is entitled to recover outstanding license fees and contractual dues for the period the petitioner operated under the interim order of the Court.

The Court applied the principle of contractual obligation and the doctrine that interim protection does not absolve a party from its financial liabilities under the underlying agreement.

An interim order allowing a party to perform services "in terms of the contract" fundamentally implies a reciprocal obligation to make payments in accordance with that same contract

The Court also referenced its consistent approach in similar matters, specifically Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 13919/2019

The Court reasoned that because the interim order dated December 24, 2019, mandated the petitioner to provide services "in terms of the contract," the petitioner was bound by both the rights and the obligations of said contract

The Court rejected any implicit suggestion that the petitioner could operate the catering services without settling the license fees, noting that even the petitioner did not deny liability, though they claimed payments had been made

Since the renewed term had already expired by the time of the final hearing, the only judicial necessity was to clarify the respondent's right to recover dues for the extended period of operation facilitated by the Court's stay

The Court granted IRCTC the liberty to take legal steps for the recovery of these amounts and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly