Skip to main content

VODAFONE AND THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION RULING

 VODAFONE AND THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

RULING


INTRODUCTION

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague (Netherlands) ruled that India's

imposition of a tax liability, as well as interest and penalties, on Vodafone Group for a

2007 deal was a violation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty with the Netherlands and the

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's arbitration rules (UNCITRAL).

ABOUT THE CASE

Vodafone Group, a British telecommunications corporation, purchased a 67 percent

share in Hutchison Whampoa in May 2007. Under the Income Tax Act of 1961, the

Indian government demanded capital gains and withholding tax from Vodafone for the

first time. Vodafone should have deducted the tax at source before making a payment

to Hutchison, according to the authorities. The Supreme Court found in favour of

Vodafone Group in 2012.Later, the Finance Act was changed (2012), allowing the

Income Tax Department to tax such transactions retroactively.

In 2014, Vodafone filed for arbitration, using the 1995 Bilateral Investment Treaty

between India and the Netherlands.The Permanent Court of Arbitration's International

Arbitration Tribunal decided that the government's demand is in violation of fair and

equitable treatment. The government must stop pursuing Vodafone for unpaid debts.

This was a unanimous ruling, which means that the arbitrator chosen by India also

found in Vodafone's favour.

BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY

On November 6, 1995, India and the Netherlands signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty

(BIT) to promote and protect investment by Indian and Dutch enterprises in each

other's territory. The two countries would ensure that companies operating in each

other's domains are treated fairly and equally at all times, and that they are fully

protected and secure in the other's territory. The India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment

Treaty (BIT) expires on September 22, 2016.


Vodafone invoked BIT because its Dutch entity, Vodafone International Holdings BV,

had purchased Hutchison Telecommunication International Ltd's Indian business

interests. As a result, it was a transaction between a Dutch and an Indian company.


UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW:


1. UNCITRAL was established in 1966 as a subsidiary body of the United

Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

2. It is the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of

international trade law.

3. Mandate: To further the progressive harmonization and modernization of

rules on international business and reform commercial laws.

4. It adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial

Arbitration in 1985 and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules in 1980.

5. The UNGA has recommended the use of the said Model Law and Rules in

cases where a dispute arises in the context of international commercial

relations and the parties seek an amicable settlement of that dispute by

recourse to conciliation.

6. India has also incorporated these uniform principles of Arbitration and

Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 which has been amended several times.The Arbitration Act provides

for ADR mechanisms like arbitration, conciliations, etc. for national and

international stakeholders.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree