B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.

The appeal and the civil revision petition arise from a common order dated 12-4-1999 passed in O.P.No. 306 of 1994 and O.P. No. 293 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, making the award dated 25-05-1994 a rule of court and dismissing the petition filed for setting aside the award.

2. More precisely CM.A.No. 2718 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in O.P.No.293 of 1994 and CR.P.No. 4184 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in O.P.No. 306 of 1994, on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad.

3. Since the order impugned in these two proceedings is one and the same and as the parties are common and questions that arise for consideration are also common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of these two proceedings by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'the Corporation'), represented by its Managing Director are:

The Corporation called for tenders for construction of bus terminal complex at Guntur. M/s. SEW Constructions (hereinafter called as the claimant) participated in the tender and ultimately work came to be entrusted on a net contract amount of Rs.1,87,45,216/-. An agreement came to be executed between the parties vide agreement No.19 CCE 87-88, dated 9-7-1987. The work was to be completed within 18 months i.e. by pt week of January 1989. The claimant completed the construction of the complex by December, 1990. Of course, the claimant contended that delay in execution of the work was because of delay in handing over site and supply of material by the Corporation. After the work was completed, disputes arose between the parties with regard to the amount payable to the claimant. The agreement stipulated the settlement of disputes by way of arbitration. Therefore, the claimant and the Corporation nominated their respective arbitrators. The claimant nominated T.K.Mohan Rao, Chief Engineer (Retd.) and whereas the Corporation nominated K. Yagnanarayan, CE (Retd.). The claimant and the Corporation submitted their respective statements and counter statements before the arbitrators. The claimant put in claims under 9 (nine) heads VIZ.,

(1) For extra quantities and above Agreement quantities 463812.54

(2) Towards recovery of excess Cost of steel 138967.23

(3) Towards escalation for work done beyond agreement period 1423782.00

(4) Towards cyclone damages 14261.00

(5) Execution of several new items not covered by agreement 32403.40

(6) Tender percentage over excess Amount used in changed Specifications for RCC items 6623.60

(7) Non-application of rebate of 1.57% of new items 43390.00

(8) For overhead and establishment Expenses 2499360.00

(9) Interest on the amount due 1355669.00

5. Before the arbitrators, the claimant marked 47 documents and whereas the Corporation marked 14 documents. During the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrators, claimant withdrew his claim in respect of claim Nos. 4 and 6. The arbitrators, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the representatives of the parties, allowed the claims of the claimant in respect of claim No.1 (in part), claim No.3 and claim No.9 (in part), while rejecting the claims of the claimant in respect of Clain1 Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 8. The claims allowed by the arbitrators are:

Claim No.1 3,59,081.00

Claim No.3 14,23,782.00

Claim No.9 i11terest @ 18% pending lit while rejecting interest for pre-reference period.

6. The claimant filed O.P.No.306 of 1994 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad to make the award dated 25-5-1994 as a rule of court and whereas the Corporatiol1 filed O.P.No.293 of 19941lnder Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad to set aside the award dated. 25-4-1994. Lear11ed Senior Civil Judge allowed the O.P.No.306 of 1994 and dismissed the O.P.No.293 of 199