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

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

While the US’s dramatic exit from the OECD’s global tax deal naturally grabbed headlines, Trump’s premeditated move shouldn’t detract from pillar two’s lofty ambitions
The ‘big four’ firm’s audit of gambling company Entain is under the spotlight; in other news, Ireland shrugs off Trump’s rejection of pillar two
Mid-market European private equity house Inflexion, which also backs law firm DWF, has agreed to acquire a minority stake in the Dutch tax advisory firm
Donald Trump’s inauguration, pillar two, APAs and TP were all up for discussion as ITR spoke to Baker McKenzie’s two newly minted US partners
In-house teams that want a balance of internal control and external expertise for pillar two should seriously consider co-sourcing models, Russell Gammon of Tax Systems argues
The OECD has vowed to continue working with the US despite the president effectively pulling the country out of the organisation’s global minimum tax deal
Norton Rose Fulbright highlights a Brazilian investment fund as a practical example of how new Dutch tax rules will require significant attention from foreign companies
Thomson Reuters now has ‘end-to-end capability’ for its tax workflow business, according to its president for tax accounting and audit professionals
Patrick O’Gara, who is rated as a ‘highly regarded practitioner’ by World Tax, had spent over 20 years at Baker McKenzie
If approved, it would become the first ‘big four’ firm to practise law in the US; in other news, Morrison Foerster hired a new global tax co-chair
Gift this article