ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

1. These two petitions arise out of a common award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 22.11.2010 in a dispute that has arisen between the claimant, M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. and the respondent, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The parties are referred to as "Sterlite" and "BSNL" respectively.

2. O.P. No. 200 of 2011 has been filed by the "Sterlite" and O.P. No. 774 of 2011 by the "BSNL". The facts in brief preceding the filing of the above petitions by the respective parties are as follows:

(i) "Sterlite" which is a Public Limited Company had bid for a tender floated by "BSNL" for the supply of 24F of cable for its Southern Telecom Project on 01.10.2005. The case of "Sterlite" was that in or about July/August 2005, "BSNL" has circulated a letter bearing No. F.No. 3-2/2004-MMT/PT-III dated 01.08.2005 informing that an amendment has been effected to the Fall Clause with immediate effect, in and by which a change had been incorporated to Clause 24 of Section III of the standard form of contract executed by the BSNL with its vendors. The amended Fall Clause would read as follows:

"Amendment to Clause 24 of Section III (Fall Clause):-

24.1. The prices once fixed will remain valid during the scheduled delivery period except for the provisions in clause 12.1 of Section III. Further, if at any time during the contract.

(a) It comes to the notice of purchaser regarding reduction of price for the same or similar equipment/service.

and/or

(b) the prices received in a new tender for the same or similar equipment/service are less than the prices chargeable under the contract, the purchaser for the purpose of delivery period extension, if any, will determine and intimate the new price, taking into account various related aspects such as quantity, geographical location etc., and the date of its effect for the balance quantity/service to the vendor. In case, the vendor does not accept the new price to be made applicable during the extended delivery period and the date of its effect, the purchaser shall have the right to terminate the contract without accepting any further supplies. This termination of the contract shall be at the risk and responsibility of the supplier and the purchaser reserves the right to purchase the balance unsupplied quantity/service at the risk and cost of the defaulting vendor besides considering the forfeiture of his performance security.

24.2(a) The vendor while applying for extension of time for delivery of equipment/services, if any, shall have to provide an undertaking as "We have not reduced the sale price and/or offered to sell the same or similar equipment/service to any person/organisation including Department of central/state Government or any central/state PSU at a price lower than the price chargeable under the contract for "scheduled delivery period.

(b) In case under taking as in Clause"

24.2(a) is not applicable, the vendor will give the details of prices, the name (s) of purchaser, quantity etc., to the purchaser, while applying extension of delivery period."

(ii) By reason of this amendment, it was made clear that once prices have been fixed, it would remain valid throughout the scheduled delivery period as against the earlier Clause 24 which said that if at any time during the period of the contract i.e. scheduled delivery period or its extended period of delivery, if a lower price is charged with reference to the very same service, then the price would be reduced to that lower price.

(iii) Since the amendment was brought in prior to the tender floated by BSNL, Sterlite by its letter dated 14.10.2005, brought to the notice of "BSNL" the said amendment and "Sterlite" had requested the "BSNL" to incorporate the amended clause 24 into the tender. However, it appeared that the said amendment was not carried out. Thereafter, an advance purchase order was placed by the "BSNL" on 05.01.2006 for the supply of 800 kms of 24F OF cable. "Sterlite" was required to furnish a Bank Guarantee which "S