Ray, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) These appeals on special leave have been filed by the contractor, K. V. George against the judgment and order passed on 10th April, 1987 by the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. Nos. 291 and 304 of 1982 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sub-Court, Trivandrum in O. P. (Arb.) No. 296 of 1981 as also the award of the Arbitrator in A.C. No, 276 of 1980 and directed that the Arbitrator will dispose of the arbitration case No. 132 of 1980 in the light of the judgment of the Sub-Court in O.P. (Arb.) No. 81 of 1981 in accordance with law considering the claim of the contractor-appellant and the counter-claim of the respondents.
(3.) The appellant who is a contractor entered into a contract with the respondents on April 22, 1978 in connection with the construction of an embankment across Musaliyar Padom between Chaniage 2573.5M to 2827M of E.B. Main canal of Kallada Irrigation Project. The work was required to be completed by 30th March, 1980 i.e. two years from the date of selection notice which was dated 30th March, 1978. As the appellant failed to complete the work as per the terms of the contract, the respondents sent a notice dated April 26, 1980 to the appellant cancelling the contract at his risk and cost. On July 2, 1980 the appellant filed a claim being arbitration case No. 132 of 1980 before the named arbitrator i.e. the Chief Engineer (Arbitration), Vellayambalam, Trivandrum claiming enhancement of rates in respect of the earth work involved in the contract, interest on delayed payments and costs. The second respondent, the Superintending Engineer, K.I.P. Circle, Karnataka filed a defence statement stating inter alia in para 2(1) that the time of completion of the work was fixed as 24 months from the date of handing over site to the contractor and he could have anticipated all such variations before quoting rates. As per agreement the rates once agreed will not be enhanced. The department is not bound to pay the claimant a revision of schedule. In para 2(m) it has also been pleaded that as per agreement the contractor is bound to carry out additional and extra items of works that arise during execution. The additional and extra items of works done by the contractor are quite meagre when compared to the total volume of the work. The extra and excess items were covered by supplemental agreement. The contractor was not able to complete even 35% of the total work within the time of completion of the work and as such the claimant is not entitled to attributed delay on this account. A counter-claim was filed by the Superintending Engineer, K.I.P. Circle, Kottarakkara, the respondent No. 2 wherein a claim of a sum of Rs. 28,84,000/- was made.;