The latest quarterly round-up is here!
The latest quarterly round-up is here!
The latest quartely round-up is here!
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.
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
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”.
In this article the authors have aimed at analysing the indirect approach that has been taken by the Indian courts with reference to the enforcement of foreign Emergency Arbitration awards and provide context of internationally accepted standards to suggest a change in the aforesaid approach.
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.
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.
In this post, the authors explicate the arbitrator’s power to grant compound interest or post-award interest on interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The authors had analysed the current position considering numerous High Courts and Supreme Court judgements and foreign jurisprudence.
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.
In this post, the author highlights the alter ego ground undertaken in the Cairn dispute, against the Indian Government and Air India. The piece refers to US jurisprudence on the alter ego, and applying the same, the author has concluded that Cairn’s action would fail as Air India does not pass the standards for being an alter ego of a State.