The Court cannot extend a contract period, and the rejection of an extension request does not automatically entitle the claimant to compensation. The authority to extend the contract period lies with the parties to the contract, and the Arbitrator is better suited to adjudicate claims for compensation and damages.

This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996 for brevity), is directed against the order dated 19-4-2012, passed by the X Addl. District Judge, Bhopal in Arbitration Case No. 17/2012, whereby the application filed by the appellant under section 9 of the Act has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the respondent-M. P. State Mining Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Corporation for short) has granted into a contract agreement of mining lease to the appellant, granting mining lease for sand quarry for the period with effect from 6-4-2010 to 5-4-2012. Undisputed facts were that the appellant was required to pay the licence fee and royalty for quarry and the transportation of the sand in different mines situated in different districts. There were certain conditions mentioned in the agreement and Clause-17 of the contract agreement prescribes the procedure for extension of the mining period. The same is reproduced as translated in English for the purposes of appreciation as under :-

"17. After the period of contract is over, in specific circumstances with the mutual consent, the Board of Director of the Corporation would be empowered to extend the period of contract on terms and conditions so fixed."

3. Clause-23 of the contract agreement deals with force majeure. Contingency in which the period spent on account of certain natural calamities, unavoidable circumstances, war etc. was to be excluded from the contract period. The specific provision was made that the period required in the said eventualities would be excluded from the contract period in favour of the contractor by keeping the contract under abeyance for the said period.

4. It is contended by the appellant that there were frequent Road Jams on account of which the appellant was not in a position to extract and transport the sand as per the minimum requirement during the said period and since it was beyond the control of the appellant, a prayer was made for keeping the contract period in abeyance for the period spent in such eventualities. An appropriate application was made in this respect before the respondent Corporation authorities seeking application of Clause-23 (force majeure), but the said application dated 13-12-2010 filed by the appellant was rejected by the respondent Corporation on 5-5-2011. This has given rise to a dispute and, therefore, as per the terms mentioned in Clause-24 of the Contract agreement, the dispute was referred before the sole Arbitrator. Since the period of contract was coming to an end, an application was filed by the appellant before the sole Arbitrator under section 17 of the Act for grant of interim protection and considering the said application, the Arbitrator passed an order on 27-3-2012 in Arbitration Case No. 2/2011 directing to maintain the status-quo with respect to the contract granted to the appellant for a period of six weeks. Despite passing of this order, the respondent Corporation issued an order on 5-4-2012 and directed that since the contract period of appellant was coming to an end in the midnight of 5-4-2012, the work of extracting the sand be started by the departmental authorities of the respondent Corporation with effect from 6-4-2012. Since such an order was issued, the order of Arbitrator was not complied with, there was no provision for getting the order of Arbitrator executed, an application under section 9 of the Act was filed by the appellant before the Principal Court i.e. the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, for grant of an interim injunction. In such an application, the facts were categorically stated relating to passing of the order by the Arbitrator and the violation of the order of the Arbitrator by the respondent Corporation and a prayer was made that the direction be issued to the respondent Corporation not to violate the order of the Arbitrator and to maintai