India: Tata - Docomo Verdict: A Critical Analysis

Last Updated: 2 June 2017
Article by Anurag Pareek

I Introduction

1.1Enforcing an arbitral award (the "Award") given by London Court of Arbitration ("LCIA"), the Delhi High Court (the "Court") on 20th April, 2017 settled the Tata-Docomo dispute by its judgment in NTT Docomo Inc. v. Tata Sons Ltd1 (the "Judgement"). While, both parties wanted to enforce the Award, it was the Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") that intervened on the basis of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("FEMA") and the regulations issued thereunder, that led to this dispute being dragged in the Court.

II Case Background

2.1 Tata Sons Limited ("Tata") and Tata Teleservices Ltd. ("TTSL") entered into a Shareholder Agreement ("SHA") with NTT Docomo Inc. ("Docomo") on 25th March 2009.

2.2 Under the SHA, Clause 5.7.2 stated that "if TTSL failed to satisfy certain 'Second Key Performance Indicators' stipulated in the SHA, Tata would be obligated to find a buyer or buyers for Docomo's shares in TTSL at the higher of (a) the fair value of those shares as of 31st March 2014, or (b) 50% of the price at which Docomo purchased its shares (the "Sale Price")."

2.3 Failure to deliver evidence as required under SHA on part of TTSL led to a dispute between the parties. In reference to Clause 12.1.2(a) this dispute was referred to the senior officers duly designated by Docomo and Tata but it could not be resolved. Therefore, Docomo referred the dispute to the LCIA for the purpose of initiating arbitration proceedings.

III Decision of the Arbitral Tribunal ("AT")

3.1 The Court summarised the conclusions reached by the AT in the impugned Award in the following manner:

  1. The object of Clause 5.7.2 was to guarantee Docomo an exit at a minimum of 50% of the subscription price. Clause 5.7.2 was drafted the manner it was because "the parties knew exchange control regulations and other considerations might prevent performance under a simple 'put option' clause". The purpose of this clause was to provide 'stop loss' downward protection to Docomo as an investor.
  2. The first part of Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA provided an absolute unqualified primary contractual obligation of Tata to find a third party buyer for the Sale Share at the Sale Price. The second part of Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA provided an alternate that in the event Tata was unable to discharge its primary contractual obligation to find a third party buyer for the Sale Shares at the Sale Price, then Tata could itself buy or procure the Sale Shares to be bought at any price and indemnify Docomo for the price difference between the actual sale price at which the Sale Share were transferred and the Sale Price agreed under the SHA. If Tata was unable to perform either of the alternatives, it was in breach of its contractual obligation.
  3. S. 56 of the Indian Contract Act ("ICA") provides that an agreement to do an impossible act is void. However, Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA is not impossible of being performed even after considering the pricing guidelines prescribed under FEMA and regulations issued thereunder. It was possible for Tata to find a third party buyer who was resident outside India who could have purchased the Sale Shares at the Sale Price pursuant to the general permission of the RBI under Regulation 9 (2) (i) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India), Regulations, 2000 ("FEMA 20"). Alternatively, a purchaser resident in India could have bought the Sale Shares at fair market value followed by Tata compensating Docomo for the price difference.  FEMA and the regulations issued thereunder do not excuse non-performance of contractual obligations. There were alternates available with Tata by which the obligation in question are covered by general permissions under FEMA 20.  Therefore, an award of damages for breach of Clause 5.7.2 would not amount to a circumvention of relevant FEMA regulations.  

3.2 The AT passed an Award in favour of Docomo stating that Docomo is entitled to damages equivalent to the Sale Price of US$ 1,172,137,717 payable by Tata to Docomo within 21 days. Further, interest and cost was also awarded to Docomo.

IV Proceedings before the Delhi High Court and its Decision

4.1 Before the Court, Tata initially filed its objections to the enforcement of the Award but later on a joint application was filed by Docomo and Tata under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code ("CPC") jointly seeking to place on record the consent terms agreed between the parties and disposal of the main petition in terms of the said settlement (the "Consent Terms"). Pursuant to the Consent Terms, Tata agreed to pay the amount awarded by the AT.

4.2 Court dealt with the following three issues mainly and decided the case accordingly.

4.2.1 Locus Standi of Reserve Bank of India.

The Court analysed Section 48(1)2 along with Section 2(h)3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Arbitration Act") and concluded that there is no provision envisaged under the Arbitration Act which permits intervention by an entity that is not a party to the award, to oppose enforcement of an arbitral award.

The Court then considered Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC which provides that a compromise must be lawful. It elaborates this by stating that a compromise that is void or voidable under the ICA shall not be deemed to be lawful. However, even an objection on the ground that a compromise is unlawful can not be taken by a third party.

The Court held that the mere fact that a statutory body's power and jurisdiction might be discussed in an adjudication matter or an Award will not confer locus standi on such body or entity to intervene in those proceedings. At the same time, RBI will, just as any other entity, be bound by an award interpreting the scope of its powers and any of its regulations subject to it being upheld by a Court when challenged by a party to the award.

The Court stated that the nature of payment being made pursuant to the Award was that of damages and not the sale consideration of the Sale Shares. The order that the share scrips must be returned to Tata was only incidental and, in fact, Docomo itself was not interested in retaining the scrips. RBI can not therefore re-characterise the nature of payment being made under the Award to which there is no longer any opposition from Tata, the only party which can possibly oppose the enforcement. RBI itself does not dispute that no special permission of RBI is required for remittance of an amount to a person resident outside India which is in the nature of money awarded as damages in terms of an arbitral award.

4.2.2 Validity of SHA and the Award

The Court opined that there were no provisions in FEMA that absolutely prohibited contractual obligation from being performed. It only envisaged a grant of special permission of RBI. The Court held that it was correctly observed by the AT that, Clause 5.7.2 of SHA was legally capable of performance even without the special permission of RBI because, such permission could be generally obtained under sub-regulation 9(2) of FEMA 20 where shares of an Indian company are transferred between two non-resident entities. In regard to the legality of the Award, the Court agreed with the AT and said that it was rightly pointed by the AT that the clauses of SHA were in consonance with the provisions of Indian Law and therefore the grounds under Section 48 of Arbitration Act could also not be attracted. Docomo invested US $2.5 billion and would just receive half of that amount as Award, thus, making it neither perverse nor improbable.

4.2.3Validity of the Compromise.

The Consent Terms were entered into between Docomo and Tata on 20th/23rd February 2017. The object of entering into such terms was to put an end to their dispute and "in the public interest of preserving a fair investment environment in India" that the parties have decided to enter into the said consent terms. Further, it is noted that "as a gesture of good faith and in accordance with the Respondent's record of adherence to contractual commitments that the Respondent has always enjoyed both in India and abroad, the Respondent withdraws its objections to the enforcement of the Award in India." They also undertook to abide by the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and obtain all the requisite statutory permissions and clearances. Thus, the Court stated that there is nothing in the Consent Terms which can be said to be contrary to any provision of Indian law much less opposed to public policy or void or voidable under the ICA.

V A Critical Evaluation of the Award and the Consequential Court Judgement

5.1 In the author's opinion, the LCIA and Court is correct in mechanically interpreting the contractual terms of the SHA. However, from a foreign exchange regulatory policy perspective, the author believes that the spirit of RBI's policy that there must be no assured return in an equity investment made by a foreign investor, has been effectively compromised.

5.2 An equity investment (whether by a domestic resident or a non-resident) by its very nature implies that the investor is not assured of a fixed profit/return and neither there is any assurance that the losses will be limited to a particular extent. In other words, there can be unlimited profit/return and on the down side there could also be unlimited loss. In this spirit, RBI had prohibited issuance of any equity instrument with attached optionality (call/put options) which provided a fixed rate of return.

5.3 The Award states that Clause 5.7.2 is not in the nature of a put option in favour of Docomo. However, in the author's opinion, a contractual assurance to find a third party buyer at a price calculated pursuant to a pre-determined formula is effectively same as providing a put option. Irrespective whether the buyer is the counter party to the SHA itself or any third party found by such counterparty, the effect is the same that the foreign investor finds an assured opportunity of selling his shares which is akin to a put option.

5.4 For instance, a put option clause which provides a minimum assured sale price of 150% of the investment amount to a foreign investor is considered to be a straight forward violation of the RBI policy since it assures the investor that its profit/positive return shall not be less than a particular threshold amount. Similarly, for instance, where the minimum assured sale price is 50% of the investment amount, it is still effectively as assurance to provide a fixed price which assures that the foreign investor's negative returns will not exceed a particular threshold.  In the author's opinion, any form of assurance on a foreign investor's return on an equity investment, whether positive or negative, is effectively in spirit in breach of RBI's policy of not providing any assured return to a foreign equity investor.

5.5 The Award states that the payment made by Tata to Docomo pursuant to the Award is in the nature of a compensation/indemnity for breach of contractual obligation by Tata and not sale consideration for the transfer of  the Sale Shares to Docomo and therefore such payment does not require specific permission of the RBI. The transfer of the share scrips is merely incidental. In the author's opinion, whether the payment is termed as sale consideration or disguised as indemnity/compensation, the effect is the same that Sale Shares were transferred from Docomo to Tata and Tata (being a person resident in India) paid an amount which is in excess of the fair market value of the Sale Shares. In effect, the Docomo is interested in receiving payment irrespective whether it labelled as sale consideration or compensation/indemnity for contractual breach.

5.6 The Judgement provides that if an arbitrator in a private dispute decides on a matter relating to the power and jurisdiction of the RBI, the RBI shall be bound by such decision and shall not even be offered an opportunity to intervene before a court of law at the time of enforcement of the arbitral award unless one of the party to the arbitral award decides to object at the time of its enforcement. In the author's opinion, it is a dangerous proposition to suggest that an arbitrator in a private dispute (whether in India or overseas) can decide upon the power of India's financial regulator and the regulator shall not even be allowed an opportunity of being heard in matter concerning its own power and jurisdiction unless the private party decides to object the enforcement of the arbitral on the ground of illegality or breach of public policy. In effect, the Court has considered a private arbitrator or a private disputing party to be wiser and more judicious in deciding RBI's power and jurisdiction then RBI itself.  

6 Conclusion

6.1 The Judgement though a positive development for the foreign investor investing in India, it does not, in spirit, confirm with India's foreign exchange policy. It will undoubtedly boost investor confidence consequently leading to more foreign investment in India since the foreign investors can have downward protection of their equity investment in India. Investors will also have more confidence that foreign institutional arbitral awards are enforced in India without much intervention by the domestic courts and also without letting any regulator intervene.

6.2 Assuming that the Judgement is not appealed in the Supreme Court of India, one may conclude that while put option clause in a SHA assuring positive return to foreign equity investor are prohibited in law but downward protection of negative returns may be provided to foreign investors. An Indian counter party to the SHA may agree to assure a foreign investor that if the investee company business is not doing well, the foreign investor may be provided an exit at a price which is above the fair market value of his shares. Such exits may be structured by making the Indian counter party agreeing that he will find a person resident outside in India who will buy the foreign investors shares at a contractually agreed price which could be above the fair market value of such shares. If in the event the Indian party is unable to find such a third party non-resident buyer, the Indian counter party may itself buy the shares from the foreign investor and the payment made by the Indian party to the extent it is equivalent to the fair market value of the shares may be shown as sale consideration for the sale of shares and the differential amount between the fair market value of such shares and the contractually agreed exit price may be shown as indemnity/compensation from the Indian counter party for being unable to fulfil its contractual obligation of finding a third party non-resident buyer for the shares held by the foreign investor.


1 OMP (EFA) (Comm.) No. 7 of 2016.

2The beginning of S. 48(1) of the Arbitration Act reads: "1. Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused , at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that ...".

3 Section 2 (h) of the Arbitration Act defined 'party' to mean a party to an arbitration agreement.

Click here to read the Court's judgment.

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
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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