The Arbitrator did not commit legal misconduct or error in concluding that the termination of the contract was validly made by the Chief Engineer.

1. Appellant in these appeals is the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'). Two awards were passed by an Arbitrator in favour of the Board and against a contractor who is the first respondent in these appeals; As per one award, a sum of Rs. 74,49,116 was found due from the contractor to the Board and as per the other award, a sum of Rs. 28,64,965.27 was found due from him to the Board. The contractor was directed to pay the said sum with interest at the rates specified in the awards. But both the awards were set aside by the Sub Court, Trivandrum, on petitions filed by the contractor in that behalf. The Sub Judge went further and removed the Arbitrator and also superseded the order of reference to arbitration. Hence these appeals.

2. The backdrop of the two awards can be narrated in the following lines: "Kakkad Hydro-electric Project" is one of the prized projects of the Board. A major part of the project involves construction of a huge underground tunnel through the mountainous terrain. The tunnel is intended to utilize the tail waters of Moozhiar Power Station (which is a wing of "Sabarigiri Project") for augmenting power generation. For practical convenience in the construction process the tunnel was divided into two segments, one having a length of about 7 1/2 km. (7512 metres) and the other having a length of about 3 km. (3036 metres). The former segment is described in the connected documents as "Power Tunnel" and the latter is described as "Inter Connecting Tunnel". Though separate tenders were invited from approved contractors for construction of the two segments, the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the contractor for convenience) was selected by the Board to execute the work in both. Agreements were duly signed on 10th March 1980, though he began the work a little earlier with the consent of the Board's officials.

3. However, the progress of work was slow at a far slower pace than the time schedule fixed in the agreements. The Board blamed the contractor for lethargy and dereliction in carrying out the work while the contractor pointed to certain imponderables which stood in the way of keeping pace with the time schedule. He also blamed the Board's officials for inaction in regard to certain matters- The situation dragged on to a stage when both the contracts were terminated on 18th June 1981. Within a month, the contractor filed two suits in the Sub Court, Trivandrum (O.S. Nos. 285 & 286 of 1981) for declaration that termination of the contracts was illegal and also for settlement of accounts besides some other incidental reliefs. The Board filed written statements and contested the suits. During pendency of the suits, both sides jointly applied before the Sub Court for orders referring all disputes to arbitration. The court appointed Mr. Justice M. Madhavan Nair (retired Judge of Kerala High Court) as Arbitrator with the consent of both sides and referred to him 18 items of reference in each suit.

4. The Arbitrator entered on reference on 14th March 1984. After holding sittings on many days, taking evidence and hearing arguments, the Arbitrator passed the two awards on 29th November 1984 and filed them in court on 30th November 1984 being the last day of the extended period for passing the awards. But before the awards were passed, the contractor lost confidence in the Arbitrator and filed a petition in court on 22nd November 1984 seeking leave of the court to revoke the authority of the Arbitrator and/or to remove him. On 26th November 1984 the Board filed a petition in court seeking extension of period for passing awards. Those petitions were, however, not disposed of, nor did the court pass any orders thereon. The Arbitrator, in his speaking awards found, inter alia, that the contracts were validly terminated and that the contractor had repudiated the contracts and hence the amounts were found due to the Board. The Arbitrator further held that the Board is entitled to get int