The Delhi High Court held that:
- Indian courts have jurisdiction to
grant anti-BIT arbitration injunctions
- Anti-BIT arbitration injunctions are
to be granted in rare and compelling circumstances
- Arbitral tribunal appointed under a
BIT has competence to rule on its own jurisdiction
- Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996 applies only to commercial arbitration
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Delhi High Court
("Court") in the case of Union of
India v. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited &
Ors.1, refused to grant anti-arbitration injunction
(i.e. stay on arbitration proceedings) to Union of India in a
dispute under India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty
("BIT"). It held that interference by
domestic courts in arbitral proceedings under BIT is permissible
only in "compelling circumstances" in
"rare cases". The Court reaffirmed that issues
as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal should be decided
by the arbitral tribunal itself.
