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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.