Indian Court Reinforces Kompetenz-Kompetenz in Favour of Investment Treaty Arbitration

Indian courts continue to exercise restraint in arbitration matters. On 29 January 2019, the Delhi High Court disallowed Union of India’s application for an anti-arbitration injunction against Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited for an arbitration initiated under the India–Mauritius BIT in the aftermath of Supreme Court of India’s cancellation of various telecom licences in February 2012.[1]

1. Background

Following the cancellation of various mobile telecom licences in India, by the Supreme Court on 2 February 2012 (Telecom judgement),[1] and the ensuing court litigations and criminal investigations, India has been threatened by a number of treaty claims. One such claim was initiated by Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (Khaitan) in September 2013, under the India–Mauritius BIT (BIT Arbitration). Khaitan is a Mauritius based investor in Loop Telecom and Trading Limited (Loop), which suffered cancellation of licences for 21 telecom circles in India, due to the Telecom judgement.

Union of India (UoI) alleges that Khaitan is merely an investment vehicle used by certain Indian citizens, who are the ultimate beneficial owners. Based on this, UoI filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi (Court) and sought an anti-arbitration injunction against the BIT Arbitration. UoI argued that since the investment made by Khaitan in Loop is essentially an Indian investment routed through Mauritius, it does not qualify for treaty protection, and the arbitration initiated under the India–Mauritius BIT is an abuse of the treaty protection intended for genuine foreign investors. Khaitan defended against UoI’s allegations on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter as BIT Arbitration is afoot, and the tribunal there is competent to rule on its own jurisdiction.

2. Ruling

The Court, pending final hearing in the suit filed by UoI, refused to grant an interim stay on the BIT Arbitration. On the issues canvassed before it, in the interim application filed by UoI, the Court’s key observations were.

• Jurisdiction of courts over BIT Arbitration matters
• Judicial decisions can trigger BIT claims
• Investor can invoke BIT protection, despite previously litigating in domestic court
• Arbitral tribunals constituted in a BIT arbitration can rule on their own jurisdiction

3. Key Takeaways

It is positive to note that Indian courts are consistently setting a noninterventionist precedent, in both BIT and commercial arbitration matters. The repeated recognition of Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle in India and the courts allowing arbitral tribunals the independent bandwidth to rule on their own jurisdiction is heartening.

However, it is disappointing that the Court only chose to refuse the application for interim injunction, since it was clear that there was no basis for a permanent injunction either. The suit, seeking a permanent injunction against the BIT Arbitration, has not itself been disposed of. A final hearing is still pending, while the BIT Arbitration will proceed in the interim.

It is also concerning that both this and the Vodafone judgement[4] have set a dangerous precedent as far as applicability of Arbitration Act to BIT arbitrations is concerned. An adventurous court can use this precedent to exercise jurisdiction over non-India seated BIT arbitrations in the future. At the same time, the unavailability of Part II of the Arbitration Act (for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in India) will make enforcement of BIT awards more challenging in India, as they would not be subjected to easier enforcement regime contemplated under the New York Convention.

[1]Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Inion of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1.

[2]Union of India v. Vodafone Group, [CS(OS) 383/2017, decision dated 7 May 2018.

[3]Residuary jurisdiction powers under section 20 of the CPC allow courts in India the discretionary power to exercise jurisdiction in matters where the defendant resides or works for profit within the courts’ geographical jurisdiction or the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises within that courts’ geographical jurisdiction.

[4]Ibid. at 3

[5]Union of India v. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited & others, Delhi High Court, CS (OS) 46/2019, I.As. 1235/2019 & 1238/2019.