Foreign Awards
Indian Judiciary

How to Cite

Shalini, S., Sapre, A. A. ., & Ahmad Shah, S. . (2023). THE SHAKY APPROACH OF THE INDIAN JUDICIARY IN ENFORCING BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY AWARDS . Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947), 15(3), 47–62. Retrieved from


With the increase in transnational transactions, the nation-states have gained foreign investments which assisted in the growth of the national economy. The investment treaties became popular to facilitate the investment mechanism between a foreign investor and the host state. The investment regime faced many twists and turns but still proved to stand in the test of time. The Bilateral Treaties are a popular instrument in which the parties opt for making investments in foreign jurisdictions. It is needless to say that the complex regime gave rise to a range of disputes and issues. The BIT itself provides for a dispute resolution mechanism in the form of investment arbitration. The significance of arbitration resides in the legality of enforcement of its award. The present Indian policies and judicial approach are uncertain and indeterminate with respect to India’s position on the enforcement of investment arbitration awards. There has been no precision or coherence on the policy front on award enforcement. The Indian judiciary has further added fuel to the vague realm by giving contradictory pronouncements. The oscillating approach of the judiciary from pro-arbitration to anti-arbitration creates problems for foreign investors and can impact the economy of India. The researchers have ramified the article into chapters and sub-chapters. Initially, the paper set forth the evolution of the Bilateral Investment Treaties Regime of India. The second part of the paper enumerates the existing Indian policies and measures the adequacy of the Indian regulatory framework to deal with the enforcement of investment arbitral awards. Next comes the major part of the research which is analytical in nature and exhibits the oscillating approach of the Indian judiciary on the concerned issue. In this part, the researcher attempts to cull out lacunas in the investment award enforcement regime



Aatreya, S. S. (2019). Can Investment Arbitral Awards be Enforced in India? -. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Abhisar Vidyarthi. (2020). Revisiting India’s Position to Not Join the ICSID Convention. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Anand, P. (2020). Vodafone v. India – End of a Saga? The Wire.

Anti-arbitration injunction... - New York Convention Guide 1958. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2023, from

Arora, M. (2020). Indian Supreme Court Strikes Down Automatic Stay Provisions for Good. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Baxi, D., Dubey, R., & Sidana, S. (2020). BIT arbitration awards: Enforcement regime in India. Bar and Bench.

Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata v. Louis Dreyfus Armatures SAS, 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 17695.

Bhushan, S. (2011). Bit Arbitration in India: Exploring Applicability of the 1996 Act and Enforcement of Resultant Arbitral Awards. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 4(2).

Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v. India, ICC Case No 12913/MS, IIC 43 (2005).

Choudhary, A. G. & A. (2020). Enforcement of Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitral Awards in India: A Quandary. NUALS Law Journal.

Desai, N. A. (2018). Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India With special focus on India Model BIT, 2016 Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India Contents (Issue February).

Desai, N. A. (2019). Enforcement of foreign awards becomes easier: “patent illegality” removed from the scope of public policy - Lexology. Lexology.

GPF GP S.à.r.l. v Republic of Poland, [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm).

Henry, S. (2014). Bilateral investment treaties: What they are and why they matter. In China Business Review (Issue JUL).

Hubbard, J. L. (2020). Advantages to International Arbitration: Enforceability | Fitch Law Partners LLP. Fitch.

Iqbal, A. (2020). Enforcement of investment awards in India. IPleaders.

JNedumpara, J., Laddha, A., & Janardhan, S. (2019). Mapping Indian Judiciary’s Approach to Investment Treaty Arbitration. In NLUD Journal of Legal Studies (Vol. 1).

Kachwaha, S. (2013). The New Challenges and Opportunities for India in Bilateral Investment Treaties. Lexis Nexis Reserch Solutions, 29(2).

Kajkowska, S. P. and E. (2019). Grounds to Refuse Enforcement. Global Arbitration Review.

Khan, K. A. L. and M. (2020). Enforcement of BIT Awards at Bay in India as the Courts Rule Out the Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Asian Dispute Review, 22(1).

Mathur, S. S. A. & R. (2020). International Investment Arbitration From Indian Perspective. Live Law.

Mishra, S. T. and I. (2020). Recent Developments in the Enforcement of New York Convention Awards in India. In Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Modi Entertainment v. WSS. G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341.

Moses, M. L. (2017). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. In The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration.

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, [2005] EWCA Civ 1116.

OECD. (2016). The Policy Framework for Investment (PFI).

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301;

Pipes, S., Builders, A., Geco, W., Pipes, S., Pipes, S., & Pipes, S. (2020). Public Policy In Arbitration Gets New Wings : Review Of Indian Supreme Court Decisions In 2014. Economic Law Practice, 2011–2014.

Ranjan, P., & Raju, D. (2011). The Enigma of Enforceability of Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards in India. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 6, 1–33.

Renusagar v. General Electric, AIR 1994 SC 860.

RITVIK M. KULKARNI. (2020). Judicial Ambiguity in Enforcement of Investment Awards in India | Koinos. Koinos Indian Arbitration Blog.

R M Investments and Trading Company Private Limited v. Boeing Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 1136.


Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433.

Thakur, T. (2020). Reforming the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism and the host state’s right to regulate: a critical assessment. Indian Journal of International Law 2020 59:1, 59(1), 173–208.

Tying Wei Chiang. (2018). Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Investment Arbitration : Lessons Learnt From the India V . Vodafone Case. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 11(2), 251–276.

Vashistha, K. and H. (2020). Stumbling Stone in the Enforceability of Investment Arbitral Awards in India Medium. LEGIS SENTENTIA.

Union of India v. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6755.

Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8842.

Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8842.

Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2017 SCC Online Del 9930.

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (10 June 1958).

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs Union of India,2018

White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, November 30, 2011.

World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Limited., (2014) 11 SCC 639.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947)


Download data is not yet available.