In the absence of an explicit contractual provision, courts cannot mandate a contract extension; injunctive relief is improper where damages are an adequate remedy. Furthermore, an unsuccessful participant in a tender process is estopped from challenging the process after failing to secure the contract.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent raises an objection as to this court having determination to take up the matter, since it is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to "the 1996 Act") against an order passed under Section 9 of the said Act.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that a different Coordinate Bench has blanket determination in respect of appeals under the 1996 Act, including applications connected thereto.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, refers to Rule 17 of Chapter-V of the Appellate Side Rules of this Court.

4. In Clause (a) thereof, it has been contemplated that an application preferred against orders setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of the 1996 Act would be treated as a first appeal against a deemed decree whereas under Clause (b), all appeals under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, except appeals against orders setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34, would have to be posted for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. A conundrum arises since while so stipulating, both the said Clauses refer to Section 37(1)(b) of the 1996 Act instead of Section 37(1)(c) of the 1996 Act, the latter pertaining to appeals against orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 whereas Clause (b) refers to appeals against Section 9 orders.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, cites a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this court, rendered in Murshidabad Zilla Parishad vs. The Asian Health Care Development Private Limited & Ors. passed in FMA No. 816 of 2025, where such conundrum was clarified.

7. In the said judgment, the coordinate Bench observed that Clause (a) of Rule 17 of the Appellate Side Rules enumerates the categories/classes of appeals which do not require admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas Clause (b) indicates appeals which require admission.

8. In the reading of the coordinate Bench, an appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excepting an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) [which is now Section 37(1)(c)] from an order setting aside an arbitral award requires admission.

9. Accordingly, the coordinate Bench, despite having determination to take up arbitration appeals, released the matter to be placed before the Bench having determination to hear appeals under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. Simultaneously, the coordinate Bench observed that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice may consider amendment of Rule 17 of Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules, to the effect that Section 37(1)(b) needs to be replaced by Section 37(1)(c) of the 1996 Act and as to why, where a statute provides for an appeal as a matter of right, such appeal should require to be admitted under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

11. Even independently of the coordinate Bench judgment, we find that determinations have been allocated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to separate Benches for takin