Inadmissibility of intervention does not amount to denial of justice

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

The AAI’s participation in the enforcement proceedings did not amount to a waiver of sovereign immunities

The AAI qualifies as an agency of India under the SIA, and thus benefits from its own immunities from execution

Background: Enforcement of awards against air transportation assets leads to debate about sovereign immunity of India’s Airports Authority

US entities are awarded costs

Question of whether India waived its right to invoke excess of mandate will be examined with the merits

Foreign anti-suit injunctions do not produce any effect before French courts, confirming that the request to intervene is admissible

Maintenance and champerty doctrine cannot be invoked before French judge

India fails to prove that Assignment Agreement is a sham under applicable UK law

BIT does not prohibit assignment of rights under awards

Assignment Agreement is sufficient to confer standing to US entities

Background: Mauritius-based claimants assign rights under UNCITRAL awards to US entities, prompting request to intervene in enforcement proceedings

Sovereign immunity question constitutes necessary preliminary issue and is of sufficient importance to justify appeal before final ruling on enforcement

India seeks leave to appeal ruling that it waived its sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

India is ordered to pay costs

Assignment of claims by shareholders to US-based affiliates was valid

India’s applications for set-aside based on alleged violation of the tribunal’s mandate and insufficient reasons are rejected, with the court stressing arbitrators’ discretion in quantum matters

Court notes that, in any event, India did not demonstrate its substantive fraud allegations on the merits

Court finds that India’s allegation that the shareholders committed procedural fraud during the arbitration lacks factual basis

Court concludes that 2021 Appeals Judgment precludes recognition of India’s Supreme Court judgment

Neither new documents, nor Indian Supreme Court decision provide strong indications of corruption regarding the underlying contract

India made “nearly identical” fraud allegations in the set-aside proceedings for the merits award, which led to the 2021 Appeals Judgment

Archives