– Suman V.

India has taken part in 25 Investment Arbitrations out of which 13 are pending, 9 have been settled, 1 has been decided against the State, 1 has been decided in favour of the State and 1 has been discontinued according to the UNCTAD[1]. The award passed against the State in the White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India (hereinafter referred to as the White Industries case) in 2011, lead a number of foreign corporations to proceed against India by sending ISDS (Invester State Dispute Settlement) notices, challenging a wide array of regulatory measures[2]. This also influenced the government to revisit the Model BIT and made sufficient changes to the same, which paved the way to 2015 Model BIT (interchangeably referred to as 2016 Model BIT by many Authors). The first Investment Treaty Arbitration victory for India in Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. The Republic of India (hereinafter referred to as the LDA) case, therefore appears to come too late in the year, 2018 to influence India’s policy of renegotiation of existing BITs and replacement with its more restrictive 2015 Model BIT. As per reports, no Arbitration proceedings have been instituted under any Treaty signed post the new Model BIT (2015). The scope of this article is limited only to Arbitration proceedings in which India has been a respondent to between 2003 and 2019.

1 India | Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator | UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub Investmentpolicy.unctad.org, https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/country/96/india (last visited Apr 22, 2020)

[2] Prabhash Ranjan, The 2016 Model Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty: A Critical Deconstruction, 38 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business , 13 (2017), http://Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business (last visited Apr 22, 2020)



This website has been designed only for the purposes of dissemination of basic information on KOVE GLOBAL; information which is otherwise available on the internet, various public platforms and social media. Careful attention has been given to ensure that the information provided herein is accurate and up-to-date. However, KOVE GLOBAL is not responsible for any reliance that a reader places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused due to any inaccuracy in or exclusion of any information, or its interpretation thereof. Reader is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources.

This website is not an attempt to advertise or solicit clients, and does not seek to create or invite any lawyer-client relationship. The links provided on this website are to facilitate access to basic information on KOVE GLOBAL, and, to share the various thought leadership initiatives undertaken by it. The content herein or on such links should not be construed as a legal reference or legal advice. Readers are advised not to act on any information contained herein or on the links and should refer to legal counsels and experts in their respective jurisdictions for further information and to determine its impact.

KOVE GLOBAL advises against the use of the communication platform provided on this website for exchange of any confidential, business or politically sensitive information. User is requested to use his or her judgment and exchange of any such information shall be solely at the user’s risk.