Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Since factual backdrop is common to the two captioned appeals they are being decided by a common order. Challenge in FAO(OS) No.397/2014 is to the order dated September 03, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to restrain the respondent from invoking the letter dated May 30, 2014 terminating two Supply and Service Agreements : TPTL/Tower-A1/01 and TPTL/Tower-A2/01 dated February 22, 2010, modified by two Supplementary Agreement(s) dated May 10, 2010; finding a reflection by way of Amendment-1 dated July 05, 2010 to the agreement(s) dated February 22, 2010. Challenge in FAO (OS) No.398/2014 is to an order dated September 03, 2014, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that the notice dated May 30, 2014, terminating the two contracts be stayed and the respondent be directed to maintain status quo in respect of the works pending adjudication of the dispute regarding the termination of the contract before an Arbitral Tribunal, since the contract(s) between the parties had an arbitration clause.

2. On November 18, 2009 the letter of intent was issued to the appellant resulting in a binding agreement for the Tower Packages A1 and A2, and as per the terms of the offer, requiring the works to be completed by October 17, 2011 for the reason completion time was 23 months.

3. Undisputedly, time for completing the works was extended thrice – on November 11, 2011, November 30, 2012 and lastly on July 04, 2013. As per the last extension dated July 04, 2013, the scheduled date for completion of the works was October, 2014; and we take it to be October 31, 2014. While granting extensions no liquidated damages were levied, but the right to levy the same was reserved.

4. The works to be executed under the two agreements concerned the laying of a power supply line for transmitting electricity, to be generated from a hydro power project in the State of Sikkim on the river Teesta, to the designated end point. The work was sub-divided, keeping in view that part area where works had to be executed was hilly and part plains. The hilly section referred to as Tower Package A-1 and formed one contract had a segment from the hydro power station to Rangpoo, which was within the State of Sikkim and thereafter from Rangpoo to Panighatta in the Darjeeling District in the State of West Bengal. The plain section was from Panighatta to Kishanganj in the State of Bihar. The contract was for supply of material and erection of a Transmission Line. All necessary material to lay the foundations and erect the towers and thereafter lay the Transmission lines (called stringing) had to be supplied by the appellant and necessary works had to be executed. Since the supply line would pass through government land and private land; through forest areas and non-forest areas; necessary permissions required concerning the forest land from the competent authority and sanctions as per local laws for non-forest land had to be obtained. Consent of the owners of the land had to be obtained and compensation paid. To access the site where the towers would be erected a Right of Way had to be obtained, and in case of private lands, as per law, which could be mutually agreed consent terms or as per the statutory provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

5. The parties were conscious that the execution of the works would require extensive preparatory work in the form of documentation for filing applications before various authorities to seek permissions and consent, and if a work had to be executed on private land, and if consent was not given for the compensation offered to the land owners, to initiate proceedings under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This is apparent from the fact that before the contracts were entered into, but after notice inviting prop