After the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2019 (the “Bill“) was passed by both houses of the Indian Parliament, the President of India on 9 August 2019 gave his assent. The new Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (the “2019 Act“) will amend the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “1996 Act“), implementing the recommendations of the High Level Committee Report issued in 2017 under the chairmanship of Justice BN Srikrishna. The changes proposed in the Bill were previously discussed here.
Tag: Nick Peacock
In the recent decision of Sonact Group Limited v. Premuda SPA  EWHC 3820 (Comm), the English High Court confirmed its pro-arbitration approach to the interpretation of arbitration agreements. The Court held that an arbitration agreement contained in a charterparty contract could apply in relation to disputes arising out of a subsequent settlement agreement contained in correspondence between the parties relating to the sum allegedly due under the charterparty. The Court concluded the parties could be taken to have intended that the arbitral tribunal under the principal agreement would also have jurisdiction over disputes arising out of a settlement agreement between the same parties, despite the absence of an express arbitration clause in the settlement agreement.
We previously reported here that a Geneva-seated UNCITRAL tribunal (the “Tribunal“) constituted under the India-Germany Bilateral Investment Treaty dated 10 July 1995 (the “India-Germany BIT”) found India in breach of its treaty obligations in relation to its cancellation of a spectrum allocation contract (the “Contract“) in an interim award dated 13 December 2017 (the “Award“).
The Contract was entered into in 2005 between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (“Devas“), an Indian company and Antrix Corporation Limited (“Antrix“), an Indian state-owned satellite company, wherein Devas agreed to pay a fee in return for the lease of the S-band electromagnetic spectrum provided by two orbiting Indian satellites. In the arbitration before the Tribunal, the Claimant, Deutsche Telekom AG (“DT“) (which indirectly held a 20% stake in Devas via a Singaporean subsidiary) alleged a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard under the India-Germany BIT.
In the Award, the Tribunal dealt with issues of jurisdiction and liability (leaving aside issues of quantum for a later award), and held that it possessed jurisdiction to hear the dispute and that India had indeed violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment under the India-Germany BIT.
India sought to challenge the Award in the Swiss Federal Tribunal (“Federal Tribunal“), being the court of supervision of the arbitration. In a decision last month, the First Civil Law Court of the Federal Tribunal rejected India’s application for the annulment of the Award by a 3:2 majority in a judgment dated 11 December 2018 (available here (in French)).
As discussed in our recent blog post, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and appeal courts recently found that a reference to the arbitration rules of an arbitral institution was not sufficiently clear evidence that the parties had agreed on that specific institution to administer the resolution of their disputes. The case related to the ICC standard arbitration clause and the ICC has applied to the Russian Supreme Court for clarity on its approach.
However, in the meantime, the ICC has issued an additional modified standard arbitration clause “to take account of the requirements of national laws and any other special requirements that the parties may have“. The ICC then proceeds to state that it is “prudent” for parties wishing to have an ICC Arbitration in Mainland China or in Russia “to include in their arbitration clause an explicit reference to the ICC International Court of Arbitration“.
The modified clause proposed by the ICC is as follows:
“All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be submitted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.”
For further information, please contact Alexei Panich, partner, Nick Peacock, partner, Alexander Khretinin, senior associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.
The English High Court’s decision in Asset Management Corporation Of Nigeria v Qatar National Bank  EWHC 2218 (Comm), handed down in July 2018 but only recently published, concerned the court’s dismissal on the papers of an application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospect of success (available here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/2218.html).
The decision serves as an example of the court employing the summary procedure to dismiss a section 68 application on the papers, but the drawn out process highlights the practical difficulties in quickly disposing of meritless applications.
The English High Court has refused an application under s.103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996“) to set-aside an order allowing for the enforcement of an ICC award in England. The decision is the culmination of a long-running dispute in which the award debtor has sought to set-aside the award and prevent enforcement in France, the Seychelles and England. The judgement is the latest illustration of the pro-enforcement approach of the English courts with respect to international arbitral awards, particularly where an award debtor has made efforts in multiple jurisdictions to prevent enforcement against it. While the outcome is not surprising, the level of attention given to the grounds raised by the award debtor, even in the face of issue estoppel, demonstrates the importance placed by the English Court on its New York Convention obligations.
India entered into its first bilateral investment treaty (BIT), with the United Kingdom, in 1994, as part of a strategy to attract inbound foreign direct investment (FDI). Having begun to open its economy in the 1990s, India today is a major investment destination. The Modi government has been keen to attract further investment, including with its “Make in India” campaign.
However, in recent years, a variety of events has led to India being the recipient of a large number of claims by investors under BITs. By 2016, India was one of the most frequently-named respondent states in BIT proceedings. Following its first loss in a BIT arbitration in 2011 (the White Industries case, discussed here. Note: India has recently won its first BIT case, discussed here), the stance of the Indian government towards BIT protections for inbound investors appeared to harden, leading it to send notices in 2016 to terminate BITs with 58 countries, including 22 EU countries (discussed here). This followed its publication of a new 2015 Model BIT (discussed here). For the remaining BITs not cancelled in 2016/2017 (seemingly because they were within their initial terms), India has circulated a proposed joint interpretative statement to the counterparties to these BITs seeking to align the ongoing treaties with its 2015 Model BIT.
There are no known instances of states agreeing to a new treaty based on India’s 2015 Model BIT, although it was reported last year that the Indian government had approved a joint interpretative note to apply to India’s BIT with Bangladesh
In the meantime, the Indian government, through the Centre for Trade and Investment Law (CTIL), a think-tank established in 2016 by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in collaboration with Dr. Rishab Gupta, Partner, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., has instituted a survey on experiences and attitudes towards BIT protections, and their importance to FDI flows into and out of India. This outbound element is an important aspect of the analysis as Indian businesses are increasingly involved in FDI outside India, and may wish to take advantage of BIT protections over their investments.
A link to the survey can be found below, which we understand will remain active until the end of October 2018. The survey contains 10-12 questions which vary depending on the initial answers regarding the location and type of entity responding.
The outcome of the questionnaire together with the rest of the study results are scheduled to be publicly released by the end of 2018. All stakeholders with experience of or insight into the BIT regime applicable to India are encouraged to participate.
For further information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, Head of the India Disputes Practice, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.
Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin.
In this issue we consider various court decisions, which cover issues such as the applicability of the Arbitration Amendment Act 2015, binding non-signatories to an award, enforcement of an award before the National Company Law Tribunal, and the continued pro-arbitration approach of the Indian courts. In other news, we consider the continued rise of institutional arbitration in India, a detailed analysis of the proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act, as well as India-related bilateral investment treaty news (and other developments).
As previously reported here, a draft Bill to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “Act“) was approved by the Indian Cabinet on 7 March 2018 (the “Bill“). The Bill was listed as a part of the agenda for the monsoon session of the Indian Parliament and was passed by the Lower House on 10 August 2018, without any amendments. The text of the Bill can be found here.
The Law Minister has described the Bill as “a momentous and important legislation” aimed at making India “a hub of domestic and international arbitration”. The key features of the Bill are:
In its decision of 4 July 2018, the Delhi High Court (“Court“) has agreed to enforce a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award against an Indian company, despite the award debtor’s arguments that the dispute should have been referred to and administrated by the now independent Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC), which until mid-2012 was the Shanghai Sub-Commission of CIETAC (“Shanghai Sub-Commission“). The Court’s decision is interesting not only in discussing the 2012 split of CIETAC, but also because it may provide some guidance on how Indian courts may, in future, deal with structural changes to other arbitral institutions, such as the very recent termination of the joint venture between LCIA and Mauritius (the LCIA-MIAC Arbitration Centre), or the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIETAC/SCIA) and the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission (SAC) merger at the beginning of 2018. Last but not least, this decision reinforces a pro-enforcement approach of Indian courts in relation to foreign arbitral awards.