Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1187

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Soumitra Saikia, J.
M/S Techno Steel And Craft Industries And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union Of India Through The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Arb.P. 16 of 2025
Decided On : 12-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Rukmini Barua, Ms. Padmini Barua
For the Respondent: Dy.S.G.I., Mr H Gupta (C.G.C), Ms. I Das, Mr. Surajit Dutta

In the absence of contrary evidence, an agreement designating a location as the venue of arbitration constitutes the juridical seat. Consequently, only the court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over such seated location is competent to entertain applications concerning the appointment of an arbitrator under the applicable arbitration laws.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2, 11, 20 and 42 - Appointment of arbitrator - Threshold issue of territorial jurisdiction - Agreement specifying a geographical location as the 'venue' of arbitration - Whether said venue functions as the 'juridical seat' - In the absence of other conflicting clauses, an explicit mention of a location as the 'venue' constitutes the 'juridical seat' of the arbitration agreement, thereby conferring exclusive supervisory jurisdiction upon the courts situated at that location. (Paras 34, 36)

(B) Principles of Interpretation - Distinction between 'seat' and 'venue' - Mere usage of the term 'venue' is not inherently determinative if no other contrary indicia exist within the agreement - The intention of parties is ascertained by considering the entire arbitration clause to determine if a specific location was chosen for anchoring the arbitral proceedings - Once a 'juridical seat' is established, only the courts having jurisdiction over that seat are competent to entertain petitions for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. (Paras 30, 31, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court for the appointment of an arbitrator following a contractual dispute. The respondent raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court, asserting that the agreement specified a distinct location as the venue for arbitration proceedings, and therefore, only the courts having jurisdiction over that locality were empowered to entertain such a request.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the agreement mentioned a specific location as the venue for arbitration and provided no evidence of any other intended seat or contrary conditions. Consequently, the court held that the designated venue functions as the 'juridical seat', and thus, the current court lacked the required territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Issues: The main issues were whether the designated 'venue' in the arbitration clause acts as the 'juridical seat' for the purpose of invoking judicial intervention and whether the current court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under the relevant legislative provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence suggesting a different intention, a location specified as the 'venue' of arbitration in an agreement shall be interpreted as the 'juridical seat'. Courts having jurisdiction over this seat exercise exclusive supervisory control, including the authority to hear applications for the appointment of an arbitrator, while courts outside this jurisdiction are not competent to entertain such proceedings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

Heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

2] This arbitration petition under section 11(6) has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction from the Court for appointment of an arbitrator as the respondents have failed to concur on the request made by the petitioners for appointment of an arbitrator.

3] The petitioner No.1 is a proprietary concern registered under the Directorate of Industries, Assam as a Small Scale Industrial Unit having its registered office at G.N. Bordoloi Road, Ambari, Guwahati in the district of Kamrup(Metro), Assam and being so, is entitled to the rights and privileges guaranteed under the Constitution of India and other legal rights granted by various Acts, Rules, Statutes, Notifications presently being in force. The petitioners are engaged in shipbuilding activity and has its shipbuilding yard at Panikheti and had entered into agreements with the Inland Waterways Authority of India vide agreements dated 05.08.2008 and 14.03.2008 in pursuant to work orders dated 09.07.2008 and 27.02.2008 for designing, construction and delivery of two floating steel pontoons at Nemati, Dibrugarh and Tezpur respectively within seven months from the date of issuance of the work order.

4] According to the petitioners, the Delivery of the two pontoons at Tezpur was made on 12.06.2010 and taking into consideration the work order dated 27.02.2008, the actual delivery according to the petitioners was on 26.09.2008 and therefore, there was a delay of 496 days. The delivery of pontoons at Nemati and Dibrugarh was made on 21.01.2011 and the original date of delivery was subsequently extended to 27.08.2009 and accordingly, there was a delay of 511 days. It is submitted that all the deliveries were made and final bills were submitted, the authorities of the Inland Waterways Authority of India while making bills had deducted and withheld 10% of the total value of each of the three contracts as liquidated damages for the delay. According to the petitioners, the liquidated damages applicable on the three contractors are as under:

“i) Contract for construction and supply of Pontoons at Tezpur- Rs.12,72,960/-

ii) Contract for construction and supply of Pontoons at Nemati- Rs. 17,77,000/-

iii) Contract for construction and supply of Pontoons at Dibrugarh- Rs.17,77,000/-“

5] The petitioners by communication dated 07.04.2011 stated in detail as to why the liquidated damages should not be imposed and requested the authorities of the Inland Waterways Authority of India to pay the deducted amount of 10% of the total value and accordingly, the petitioners were requested to furnish adequate documentary proof to substantiate and establish that the delay was beyond their control. The said communication was duly forwarded by the Director of Inland Waterways Authorities of India for waiver of liquidated damages by its letter dated 17.06.2013 to the Chief Engineer (Civil), Inland Waterways Authorities of India.

6] According to the petitioners, the amount withheld from the final bill as liquidated damages was not paid in spite of recommendations of a waiver for liquidated damages by the Engineer in Charge in terms of the Contract Agreement, the petitioners instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No.1066 of 2014 before the High Court seeking a direction to release the 10% amount of the liquidated damages with reference to the letter of the Engineer in Charge dated 17.06.2013. The said writ petition on the grounds and reasons mentioned and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises reported in (2012) 12 SCC 581 referred the parties to arbitration, leaving the parties to take recourse to their remedies by way of arbitration and refer their disputes to the arbitrator for failing agreement and would be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Arbitra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1187

Cases Referred (11)