India: Delhi High Court restrains Vodafone’s international arbitration proceedings against India
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

India: Delhi High Court restrains Vodafone’s international arbitration proceedings against India

Sponsored by

logo.png
vodafone.jpg

In an ex-parte interim order, the Delhi High Court restrained Vodafone from initiating or continuing arbitration proceedings under the India-UK investment treaty.

Dharawat
Gangadharan

Rakesh

Dharawat

Hariharan

Gangadharan

The Delhi High Court restrained Vodafone Group Plc (UK) from pursuing arbitration proceedings initiated by it against India under the India-UK bilateral agreement for the promotion and protection of investments (the India-UK investment treaty). This arises from the long-standing dispute over India's assertion that Vodafone International Holdings BV (Netherlands) should have deducted tax on payments made by it to Hutchison Telecommunications on the purchase of shares of a Cayman Islands company with underlying investments in India.

Although the Supreme Court of India struck down the demand against Vodafone International Holdings BV, the law was retrospectively amended with a view to recover the tax from it.

Vodafone International Holdings BV initiated arbitration proceedings against India in 2014 under the India-Netherlands agreement for promotion and protection of investments (the India-Netherlands investment treaty). It was asserted that India's action was in violation of its obligations under the investment treaty.

While this was pending, arbitration proceedings were initiated by Vodafone Group Plc against India under the India-UK investment treaty in 2015. These proceedings were challenged by the Indian government before the Delhi High Court. Specifically, the government claimed that the arbitration initiated under the India-UK investment treaty was in respect of the same cause of action and that the relief claimed was the same as the relief sought in the proceedings initiated under the India-Netherlands investment treaty. It was also contended by the government that laws passed by Parliament cannot be adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal and cannot fall within the ambit of investment protection treaties.

In an ex-parte interim order, the Delhi High Court restrained Vodafone from initiating or continuing arbitration proceedings under the India-UK investment treaty. In its order, the court made the following prima facie observations:

  • Courts have to exercise great caution while restraining foreign arbitrations, and should ordinarily apply the same principles that apply to the grant of injunctions restraining foreign court proceedings;

  • Vodafone Group Plc (UK) and Vodafone International Holdings BV (Netherlands), prima facie, seemed to be one single economic entity;

  • Claimants in two arbitral proceedings forming part of the same corporate group cannot file two independent arbitral proceedings, as this would amount to an abuse of the process of law; and

  • There is a prima facie duplication of parties and issues in this case. The relief sought by Vodafone International Holdings BV and Vodafone under their respective bilateral investment treaties are identical. This accentuates the risk of parallel proceedings and inconsistent decisions by two separate arbitral tribunals.

Rakesh Dharawat (rakesh.dharawat@dhruvaadvisors.com) and Hariharan Gangadharan (hariharan.gangadharan@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors

Tel: +91 22 6108 1000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The patent box tax break has become increasingly attractive with corporation tax now at 25%, IP firm Mathys & Squire has claimed
Experts from TP tech provider Aibidia also warned ITR that companies ignoring pillar two is a ‘huge issue’ and a ‘red flag’
Hanno Berger was originally handed an eight-year sentence over an estimated $11 billion tax fraud; while in other news, France calls for minimum tax on the super-rich
Amount B is meant to increase simplicity and reduce uncertainty, but US TP specialists claim it may lead to controversy
Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole also signalled that pillar two has a 'considerable chance' of failing
The Labour Party is working hard to convince business that it will bring stability to tax policy if it wins the next UK general election. But it will be impossible to avoid creating winners and losers
Burrowes had initially been parachuted into the role last summer to navigate the fallout from the firm’s tax leaks scandal
Barbara Voskamp is bullish on hiring local talent to boost DLA Piper’s Singapore practice, and argues that ‘big four’ accountants suffer from a stifled creativity
Chris Jordan also said that nations have a duty to scrutinise the partnership structures of major firms, while, in other news, a number of tax teams expanded their benches
KPMG has exclusive access to the tool for three years in the UK, giving it an edge over ‘big four’ rivals
Gift this article