1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO (L). 1199 OF 2009 Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Central Railway (names of Zonal Railway Division) of Mumbai Railway ...Respondent. ..... Mr.Sunil Gagan i/by RMG Law Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.I.J.Pandian for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 15th October, 2009. P.C.- 1. The learned counsel appearing for respondent makes statement that they will appoint an Arbitrator within two weeks. 2. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short “the Act”) and liberty to continue the contract based upon agreement dated 16th October 2006 by referring to clauses. There is no dispute that it is a commercial contract between the parties. The extension of any contract is based upon the satisfaction of the other party. In the present case, the insistence 2 that after expiry of the contract, if it does not extended and all other conditions are satisfied/complied, the petitioner will suffer loss and injury. This facet in my view, is a matter of total consideration of all the materials, as respondents are not willing to extend the contract as prayed. The Court even otherwise cannot compel other party to continue with the contract. It is well within their command. In view of this, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 17 of the Act before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is expected that Section 17 petition to be disposed of expeditiously. 3. As a statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that they are constituting the Tribunal within two weeks, with the liberty, petition is disposed of. All points are kept open. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)