By the Arbitration Petition No.891 of 2010 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has impugned the orders/decisions dated 17th December 2009, 29th December 2009 and the award dated 25th January 2010 as corrected by the order dated 22nd February 2010 in so far as it allows the claims, or part thereof, in favour of the respondent is concerned and by the Arbitration Petition No.893 of 2010 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the orders/decisions dated 17th December 2009 and 29th December 2009 (as corrected by the arbitrator's letter dated 4th January 2010) and the award dated 25th January 2010 as corrected by the order dated 22nd February 2010 in so far as it allows the claims, or part thereof, in favour of the respondent is concerned.

2. By consent of the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent herein was the original claimant. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding both these petitions are as under :-

3. On 10th March 1992, the petitioner was awarded a contract by the State of Maharashtra for civil work pertaining to Stage IV of Koyna Hydro Electric Project (KHEP Contract). On 15th October 1992, the petitioner entered into a sub-contract agreement with the respondent for a portion of the work under the KHEP Contract. A part of the work under the KHEP Contract was also sub-contracted to a sister concern of the respondent namely SBP & Co. (the respondent in Arbitration Petition No.893 of 2010) under the Piecework Agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that after execution of the sub-contract agreement, the respondent and their sister concern handed over to the petitioner two letters both dated 15th October 1992 stipulating therein that the claims paid by KHEP authorities are based on the quoted and accepted rates of PEC and that the petitioner herein would pay to the respondent after deducting 11.5% from the payment received from KHEP authorities. It was also alleged to have been stipulated that other benefits/ claims which were settled and paid by the KHEP authorities were to be shared between the petitioner and the respondent on 50-50 basis after deducting expenses incurred by executing the works related to such claims/benefits.

4. On 30th May 1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that it would henceforth be executing the work of their sister concern M/s.SBP & Co. under the Piecework Agreement and that all bills and cheques should be made by the petitioner in the name of the respondent. The disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and KHEP authorities. The petitioner herein initiated three separate arbitration proceedings for claims relating to extra items and price that is other than BOQ items/rates. Sometime in the month of October 1999, the respondent as well as their sister concern M/s.SBP & Co. completed their work under the sub-contract with the petitioner. In the arbitral proceedings filed by the petitioner against KHEP authorities, three awards (Volume Nos.I, II and III : for Rs.31 crores, Rs.24 crores and Rs.2.31 crores respectively) were made by the learned arbitrator in favour of the petitioner and against the said KHEP authorities/ Government. In so far as the awards in respect of Volume nos.II & III are concerned, the KHEP authorities/Government made payment to the petitioner.

5. On 22nd February 2000, the respondent and the said M/s.SBP & Co. demanded an alleged balance amount of Rs.5,19,22,824/- in respect of R.A. Bill NO.139/PEC R.A. Bill No.81 from the petitioner as per the statement of account prepared by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that on 2nd April 2000, a meeting was held between the representative of the respondent and the petitioner. Accor