SEAL Quarterly Round Up Q1 & Q2 2022

By: Avantika Singh, Ayush Kumar, Ishika Chauhan, Mansi Pandey, Priyanshi Bhageria, Snehil Balani, and Yash Bhatnagar INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. In a first instance, Hong-kong court refused to tighten the test and stayed a winding-up petition in favor of arbitration ( The Hong Kong Court of First Instance stayed a winding-up petition in favor of arbitration … Continue reading SEAL Quarterly Round Up Q1 & Q2 2022

Regulatory Chill: An Analysis with Reference to India

In this article the author analyses how host states often seem to be reluctant while implementing certain policy measures which directly or indirectly affect foreign investments in the country. This largely happens as a result of the threat of arbitration that the host state may face, this reluctance to is known as the 'regulatory chill'. This article delves into this issue in detail by drawing an analysis with reference to India.

SEAL Quarterly Round-Ups: Q3&Q4 2021

By: Aarushi Gupta, Archi Jain, Christina D’souza, Gaurav Choudhary, Snehil Balani and Yash Bhatnagar INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 1. The English High Court refused an application for ‘further’ extension of time which sought to challenge an arbitral award under section 68 of the 1996 act, due to its non-conformity with the time limit stipulated under the earlier … Continue reading SEAL Quarterly Round-Ups: Q3&Q4 2021

Assignment Agreement: a New Addition Under the Ambit of Protected “Investment” in Investment Arbitration

In this article the author attempts to argue for the recognition of assignment agreement as a protected “investment” in investor-state arbitration through first, demonstrating the fulfilment of the Salini test to meet objective requirements of “investment”; and subsequently, highlighting the fulfilment of subjective requirements of “investment”.

The Contours of Abus De Droit Doctrine: An Exonerate Means to Participate in Investment Claim

In this article the author discusses the claims of being a genuine investor which are debased if it is established that the ‘nationality’ was procured by mala fide corporate (re)structuring. As a direct consequence, commentators believe that the abus-de-droit doctrine has been used as a defence for the respondent’s state to claim the investor’s nationality as ‘mala fide’. One deliberates, however, whether the respondent states can potentially use and abuse this doctrine by implicating the investors to be involved in corporate (re)structuring, purely for their own tactical or political advantage. The present post examines this question in order to propose an adequate standard for the impetus of the investment arbitration and questions whether the use of doctrine aggravates potential abuse.

India and its Jagged Investment Arbitration Landscape

In this post the author examines the 2016 Indian Model BIT and the BITs that have followed it, in light of the Indian government’s assurances to increase business friendliness and its recent introduction of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021. The post proposes changes in these treaties and concludes with steps towards a broader revamp of the present form of ISDS to mediate India’s concerns.

Invocation of Arbitration Clause in Insurance Contracts

In this post, the authors highlight the problem faced by the insured in the insurance contracts while invoking an arbitration clause. This paradigm of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts has been seen in both global as well as in India and how this clause creates a fine line for insurers to escape the liability that creates conundrum for the policy holders.