Australia, BIT, Enforcement, India, Investment Arbitration, Investment Treaties, Investor-State arbitration, New York Convention, Sovereign Immunity

(AnchayilKumar)/ /Leave a comment

The Antrix-Devas saga continues to present twists and turns (see previous coverage on the Blog here, here and here). The latest is the recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the “Full Court”) in Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC & Ors. [2025] FCAFC 2. This decision concerned the…

BIT, International arbitration, Investment Arbitration, Uncategorized

(AnchayilKumar) and (JSA, Advocates & Solicitors)/ /2 Comments

India’s Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs (the “PCEA”) recently submitted two reports to the Parliament relating to bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”). The first report –submitted in December 2021 – contained a broad review of India’s engagement with BITs and made several recommendations. The second report – submitted in July 2022 – took note of the…

Courts, India, Seat of the arbitration, Venue

(JSA, Advocates & Solicitors) and (AnchayilKumar)/ /Leave a comment
YIAG

This blog has previously discussed the issue of jurisdiction of Indian courts over foreign-seated arbitrations and the issue of Indian parties choosing a foreign seat of arbitration. However, a more fundamental issue concerns the interpretation of arbitration agreements to determine the choice of seat. Since September 2018, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has…

Anti-arbitration, Anti-suit injunction, BIT, India, Parallel Proceedings

(AnchayilKumar) and (JSA, Advocates & Solicitors)/ /Leave a comment

The long-standing tax dispute between India and the Vodafone, also previously discussed in here,  recently entered new territory when India secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the continuation of one of two bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) arbitration proceedings initiated against it by the Vodafone group. A judge of the Delhi High Court granted this injunction on…