India: The Tata-Docomo Conundrum – How Far An Arbitral Award Can Bind Third Parties

Last Updated: 19 September 2017
Article by Ajit Warrier and Aditya Nayyar

The high-profile shareholders dispute between NTT Docomo Inc. and Tata Sons Ltd. was given a quietus when the Delhi High Court, on 28 April 2017, declared an Award passed by a foreign Arbitral Tribunal as enforceable. The High Court further declared that the Award shall operate as a deemed decree of the Court. The said Order has thrown up certain interesting questions of law, namely:

  1. Would an award passed in arbitral proceedings be binding on third parties who are strangers to such proceedings?
  2. Whether a third party/stranger to a foreign seated arbitration would be entitled to object to enforcement of a foreign award passed in such proceedings?

Brief background

NTT Docomo Inc. ("Docomo"), Tata Sons Ltd. ("Tata") and Tata Teleservices Limited ("TTSL") entered into a Shareholders Agreement on March 25, 2009 ("SHA"). Clause 5.7 of the SHA provided that if TTSL failed to satisfy certain 'Second Key Performance Indicators' as contractually stipulated, Tata would be obligated to find a buyer or buyers for Docomo's shares in TTSL at a sale price being the higher of either (a) the fair value of those shares as of March 31, 2014; or (b) 50% of the price at which Docomo purchased the shares. Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA provided that in the event Tata was "unable to find a willing buyer or buyers to purchase the Sale Shares at the Sale Price or if the sale of the Sale Shares is not closed during the Sale Period", Tata "shall acquire, or shall procure the acquisition of, the Sale Shares at any price not later than the end of the Sale Period." Further, Tata was obligated to indemnify and reimburse Docomo "for the difference between the Sale Price and the price at which the Sale Shares are actually sold, which payment shall be made at the time of closing of the Sale/Sales".

It appears that since TTSL failed to deliver evidence to Docomo of its compliance of the Second Key Performance Indicators, Docomo issued a Sale Notice to Tata and TTSL calling upon Tata to find a buyer or buyers to acquire the Sale Shares during the Sale Period. The Sale Period terminated on 03 December 2014.

Docomo commenced arbitration proceedings and an Arbitral Tribunal having its seat at London was constituted, which finally delivered the Award on 22 June 2016 ("the Award"). The Arbitral Tribunal held that the primary obligation cast on Tata, which was absolute in nature, was to find a buyer or buyers of the Sale Shares on the terms that Docomo receives the Sale Price. The Arbitral Tribunal further held that Tata could have avoided the breach by availing itself of one of the alternative methods of performance provided under the SHA if it was unable to find a willing buyer at the Sale Price. The Arbitral Tribunal further held that the question as to whether a contractual obligation remains enforceable if it is subject to a requirement for special permission from the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") under the FEMA Regulations did not arise on facts. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded damages to the tune of US$ 1,172,137,717 (exclusive of interest) to Docomo on the basis that Tata was in breach of its primary obligations, which did not require any special permission of the RBI.

Docomo thereafter filed proceedings before the Delhi High Court for seeking recognition and enforcement of the Award.

It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, Docomo and Tata entered into a settlement and jointly applied to the Delhi High Court to place on record the consent terms and seeking disposal of the proceedings in terms of the settlement. Under the consent terms, the parties' inter-alia agreed that the Award be declared enforceable in India and that Tata would remit the awarded amount to Docomo, subject to certain conditions.

RBI's intervention

Before the settlement was brought on record, RBI filed an intervention application in the proceedings primarily on the ground that since the Award required remittance of money to an entity outside India, the RBI's role would not be negated. On merits, it was argued that the Award was illegal and contrary to the public policy of India inasmuch as it concluded that the FEMA Regulations need not be looked into.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the intervention application on the basis that since RBI was not a 'party' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"), it cannot seek to intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of the Award. The High Court further held that neither the Civil Procedure Code ("the Code") nor the Act recognized the locus standi of an entity, which is not a party to the suit or as in the present case, an award, to oppose a compromise arrived at between the parties. The High Court opined that this would be the position even in cases where there may be arbitral awards (or judgments of the Court) in private disputes to which RBI is not a party where its powers and functions under the statute that governs it or the rules and regulations thereunder may be discussed.

Merits of the Judgment

On merits, the High Court held that what was awarded to Docomo under the Award was damages and not the price of the shares, the remittance of which did not require special permission from RBI. It was further held that it was not open to RBI to re-characterize the nature of the payment in terms of the Award, especially when Tata was not opposing its enforcement.

The Court further observed1 that will be "bound by an arbitral Award interpreting the scope of its powers or any of its regulations subject to it being upheld by a Court when challenged by a party to the Award". This observation is followed by an illustration as extracted below:

"If, for example, there is a judgment by a civil Court, within India or outside India, taking a particular interpretation of the powers of RBI under the FEMA and that judgment is either not challenged or is upheld on challenge by the superior judicial body, then as far as the two parties to the judgment are concerned, RBI will be bound by the decision of the Court. There may be instances where the executing Court might direct that the payment of monies under an Award to a non-Indian entity outside India would be subject to the permission of the RBI since the regulations under the FEMA require it. That determination, too, subject to being altered in appeal, will be binding on the parties as well as RBI. However, even in that situation, RBI cannot intervene in those proceedings and demand to be heard. As of date, this may be viewed as a gap in the Act, particularly, in the context of Indian courts being frequently approached for the enforcement of international Awards. But in the absence of a provision that expressly provides for it, the question of permitting RBI to intervene in such proceedings to oppose enforcement does not arise."

It is the authors' respectful view that the aforesaid observations would present a number of difficulties.

Firstly, it is now a generally accepted position that disputes involving private parties and private rights which can generally be decided by a civil court are arbitrable. In other words, all disputes relating to 'rights in personam' are, generally speaking, arbitrable and choice is given to the parties to choose an alternative forum and get their inter-se disputes resolved through arbitration. However, disputes relating to 'rights in rem' which involve inherent public interest may not be arbitrable and the parties' choice to choose the alternative forum of arbitration is ousted in such circumstances. Arbitration law is thus based on the concept of party autonomy where parties are free to agree on how their disputes will be resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest. The Delhi High Court, in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi2, relying on Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd3., held that the Arbitral Tribunals are 'private fori' chosen by the parties to a contract in the place of Courts or Tribunals which are 'public fori' constituted under the laws of the country. It is also trite that a stranger or a third party to an arbitration agreement cannot ask for arbitration unless the applicant claims through or under the signatory party under certain circumstances.4

In consonance with the principle of party autonomy, the law in India makes an arbitral award binding only on the parties to the arbitration. Section 35 of the Act provides that a domestic arbitral award would be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively. Similarly, Section 46 of the Act provides that any foreign award, which is enforceable under Part II of the Act, shall be treated as binding, for all purposes, on the persons as between whom it was made, and may accordingly be relied on by any of those persons by way of defence, set off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in India. Further, 'party' has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Act (falling in Part I) to mean 'a party to an arbitration agreement'. Hence, the legislative philosophy appears to be that an award made by an arbitrator on the differences between the parties, whether domestic or foreign, cannot bind third parties or strangers to such arbitration. A reading of Sections 34 and 48(1) of the Act would also point to this conclusion, inasmuch as only parties to an arbitration are allowed to seek judicial intervention by challenging a domestic award or by objecting to enforcement of a foreign award. Russell on Arbitration, 23rd Edition 2007 @ Page 342 states that "Save where a third party agrees to be bound by it, an award is generally only effective as regards the parties to it and persons claiming through or under them."

By declaring that the Arbitral Award would bind a third party (i.e. RBI in this case) the High Court did not refer to the language of Sections 35 or 46 of the Act or Section 13 of the Code, which provides the tests for a foreign judgment to be considered as conclusive under Indian law.

The reasoning in the Judgment may also present practical challenges. For instance it is not inconceivable that parties to a foreign seated arbitration or civil proceedings outside India may obtain a foreign award or a foreign judgment which holds forth upon the ambit of powers of, and its exercise by, a Governmental or statutory authority in India, without the involvement or perhaps even knowledge of such authority. Such an interpretation may or may not be acceptable to such Governmental or statutory authority in India or may otherwise be in the larger public interest. However, the fact that such a foreign award is mandatorily binding on such authorities, even though it may adversely affect the rights of such authority, is fraught with risks.

Secondly, it appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the fact that Section 48 (2) of the Act, in contradistinction to sub-section (1) of Section 48, does not require a 'party' to furnish proof to the Court with respect to the grounds stated therein. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 48 places the onus on the Court to refuse enforcement if the Court finds existence of the circumstances outlines therein, and referred to in the preceding paragraph. The language employed by Parliament in sub-section (2) of Section 48 and in particular, absence of the word 'party' therein, is interesting, seen in contrast to Section 34, and in particular, sub-sections (3) and (5) thereof. Therefore, the question would arise whether RBI could have been non-suited for want of locus standi, if its objections to the Award were falling under sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act. From a reading of the Judgment, it is not discernible whether such a submission had actually been advanced before the High Court.

It is the authors' respectful view that the issues outlined above may require deeper consideration in an appropriate case, especially given the conclusion reached by the High Court that RBI, not being a party to the arbitration, could not have intervened in the proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award under the extant provisions of the Act. Therefore, to the extent the High Court has thereafter proceeded to examine whether a foreign award, or even a foreign judgment, would be binding upon a statutory authority like the RBI, it could perhaps be argued, in a future scenario, that the observations of the Court in that regard are obiter and not ratio5. In fact, the Supreme Court of India has held that when a direction or order is made by consent of parties, the Court neither adjudicates upon the rights of the parties nor does it lay down any principle6. Alternatively, the legislative anomaly in the Act, as noted by the High Court, will have to be rectified so as to provide more clarity on this issue.


* Authored by : Mr. Ajit Warrier, Partner and Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Senior Associate (Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co.)

1. At Para 42 of the Judgment

2. WP (C) No. 3238 of 2011 decided on 13 September 2012

3. (2011) 5 SCC 532

4. Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 641

5. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (28.04.1976) MANU/SC/0062/1976

6. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions