S.M. JhunjhunuwalA, J.:—Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 20th/23rd April, 1992 of the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 210 of 1989 by which the petition has been dismissed with costs and consequently, on the application of the learned Counsel for the respondents, judgment and decree in terms of the Award dated 24th June, 1989 has been passed with interest on the amount awarded by the arbitrators at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the Award till payment.

2. On 14th July, 1981, the appellants had entered into a contract with one Paul Lindenau GmBH Co., a company incorporated in the Federal Republic of West Germany (for short, referred as Lindenau) (which contract has been described as Building Contract Part I) for acquisition of a Drillship to be built by Lindenau for the consideration and upon the Terms and Conditions set out therein. The purchase price of the Drillship to be delivered at Kiel in West Germany was agreed at West Germany Deutsche Mark Sixty two million five hundred thousand (DM 62,500,000). Under the said Building Contract Part I, Lindenau has been described as Contractor A and the respondents have been referred as Contractor B. Lindenau agreed to fabricate the Drillship for the appellants in accordance with the rules of American Bureau of Shipping and the specifications appended to the said Building Contract Part I. It has been provided in the said Building Contract Part I that the respondents would provide to Lindenau, on behalf of the appellants, certain items of plant and machinery for being installed and incorporated in the Drillship. Clause 2.3.1 of the said Building Contract Part I provided that the respondents would make payment of 20% of the contract price to Lindenau on behalf of the appellants and Clause 2.3.2 thereof provided that on receipt of acceptance certificate signed by the appellants or their authorised representative, Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau, a West German Financial Institution (for short, referred as KFW) would make the final payment of the balance 80% of the Contract price to Lindenau on behalf of the appellants.

3. On 14th July, 1981 itself, the appellants entered into another contract with the respondents (which contract has been described as Building Contract Part II and hereinafter referred as the said Contract) whereunder the respondents agreed to provide various items of plant and machinery to Lindenau for being installed and incorporated in the Drillship and various equipments and services for the benefit of the appellants. Under the said contract, the respondents were to assist Lindenau with designs and specifications, render various services to the appellants and do various acts and things in relation to the project of acquisition of the Drillship by the appellants as specified therein, take delivery of the Drillship at Kiel and ultimately deliver the Drillship to the appellants off Bombay on the Terms and Conditions set out therein. Under Clause 2 of the said Contract, the appellants agreed to pay United States Dolloars Fifty Five Million - (US $ 55,000,000) to the respondents in the manner set out therein. In this contract also, Lindenau has been referred as Contractor A and the respondents as Contractor B.

4. For acquisition of the Drillship, the appellants were required to make large payments to Lindenau as the contract price. The appellants were also required to pay large amount to the respondents as specified in the said contract and incidental thereto. In Clause 2.4 of the said contract, it has been provided that the respondents would be responsible for the payment of Lindenau on behalf of the appellants in accordance with the rules and regulations of KFW Programm VIII-E werfthilfeprogranmm. For the purpose of effectuating transaction between the appellants and the respondents for acquisition of the Drillship by the appellants and incidental thereto, the respondents did enter into a contract