Gauhati High Court Refuses To Appoint Arbitrator In Techno Steel-IWAI Dispute, Holds Noida Was Arbitral Seat

The Gauhati High Court has held that Noida was the juridical seat of arbitration in a dispute between Techno Steel and Craft Industries and the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), and therefore declined to appoint an arbitrator for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Soumitra Saikia held that the parties had effectively agreed to Noida as the arbitral seat under the contract.

The court observed, “This Court will have to hold that in terms of the agreement, the parties have decided to agree that the 'arbitral seat' will be at 'Noida' in terms of Section 20(1),”

“Merely because of the use of the term 'venue' would not be sufficient to indicate that the 'arbitral seat' between the parties has not been fixed as decided at 'Noida' inasmuch as there are no contrary indications upon a plain reading of the agreement including the arbitration clause that the 'venue' is merely a 'place' or one of such place where arbitration proceeding will be conducted and therefore, not the 'juridical seat' of arbitration.”, It added.

The dispute arose from contracts awarded by IWAI for the design, construction and delivery of floating steel pontoons at Tezpur, Nemati and Dibrugarh.

Techno Steel contended that although the work had been completed and final bills submitted, IWAI deducted 10% of the contract value as liquidated damages for delays.

The deductions totalled about ₹48.26 lakh, comprising ₹12.72 lakh for the Tezpur contract and ₹17.77 lakh each for the Nemati and Dibrugarh contracts.

According to the contractor, the delays were beyond its control. It sought a waiver of the liquidated damages and relied on a recommendation made by the Engineer-in-Charge in support of that request. The deducted amounts were never released.

It approached High Court initially for relief but was instead directed to pursue arbitration.

Techno Steel invoked arbitration in March 2025. In response, IWAI proposed a panel of three arbitrators and referred to the contractual clause providing that the venue of arbitration proceedings would be at Noida.

Before the Court, Techno Steel argued that the agreement specified only a venue and not a seat of arbitration. It also pointed out that IWAI had not questioned the Court's jurisdiction during the earlier writ proceedings.

IWAI countered that the parties had consciously chosen Noida as the venue of arbitration and that courts exercising jurisdiction over Noida alone could entertain a request for appointment of an arbitrator.

After, examining the arbitration clause, the High Court found no indication that Noida was intended merely as a place where hearings could be conducted.

The court concluded that the parties had effectively fixed Noida as the arbitral seat. Consequently, it held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The arbitration petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to approach the competent court.

For Petitioner (M/s Techno Steel and Craft Industries & Anr.): Advocates Rukmini Barua, Padmini Barua.

For Respondent (Union of India and Inland Waterways Authority of India): Senior Advocate Surajit Dutta, assisted by Advocate I. Das.