Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This application was filed challenging Award dated September 21, 1998 passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. On an offer by the respondent Greaves Limited to the petitioner Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Company Ltd., for getting design, erection and commissioning of gantries for Second Hooghly Bridge, purchase order was placed by the petitioner dated August 19/ September 11, 1985. Work order dated September 17, 1985 was placed by the petitioner on the respondent for erection and commissioning of the two gantries. The first gantry was delivered by the respondent in two separate consignments dated November 24, 1987 and November 28, 1987. Second gantry was delivered on May 31, 1988. Bills were raised by the respondent claiming escalation of wages and steel price incorporating also a claim for central sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent. In June 1988, the respondent raised bills claiming escalation of wages and steel price with similar claim of central sales tax at the rate of 4 per cent. Further bill was raised by the respondent on February 13, 1990 for balance erection and commissioning charges. When Declaration Forms were refused to be supplied, claim for balance sales tax was also made.
(2.) The respondent filed its first application on June 24, 1990 under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking filing of agreement and reference to arbitration of disputes relating to wage escalation and steel prices escalation in respect of two gantries. Second application under section 20 of the said Act was filed on February 27, 1992 seeking reference to arbitration of disputes relating to central sales tax and erection and commissioning charges in respect of two gantries. Disputes were referred to Arbitrator on April 3, 1992 on disposal of the first application under section 20. There was a change of Arbitrator by a further order dated April 2, 1993. The second application under section 20 was decided on August 6, 1996 referring the disputes to arbitration. Award was passed in respect of the first proceeding and the amount held payable thereunder, has since been realised on execution. Award was passed on September 21, 1998 in respect of the second proceeding which has been challenged in the present petition. Heard Mr. Debal Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.) Broadly two questions have been raised herein. The first one is that two arbitration proceedings were not permissible as the entire cause of action arose out of one contract and principles as contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bars the second proceeding. Resulting consequence is that the award in the second arbitration is bad. The second aspect is, cause of action relating to claim for sales tax arose much before the first application under section 20 was filed as the claim for sales tax was at the rate of 10 per cent according to the prevailing rates and there was no occasion of supply of declaration forms on refusal whereof, no cause of action arose extending period to lodge a claim.;