You are here: Home » Companies » News
Business Standard

HC seeks RBI clarification in Tata-DoCoMo case

Court also asks Tata for alternative solution; next hearing on Dec 21

Sayan Ghosal  |  New Delhi 

Tata Tele shows signs of coming out of the woods

On Thursday, arguments on behalf of were heard by the high court here, against the enforcement of a $1.17 billion London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award in favour of Japanese telecom giant NTT DoCoMo. The HC decided to issue a notice to the Reserve (RBI) to clarify its stance in the ongoing dispute. The next date for the hearing is December 21.

The arbitral award is the result of a two-year tussle between the two corporate behemoths on Tata Teleservices, their failed joint venture (JV), in which holds 26 per cent stake. By their initial agreement, was given a choice of exiting the venture after three years at a pre-determined share price. Its stake was to be bought by Tata or an external buyer, which the Indian company was to arrange. 

In 2014, after the collaboration failed to generate the desired returns, decided to exercise the exit option. By then, the share price of Tata Tele had plummeted far below the earlier decided exit amount (Rs 58 or fair market value, whichever was higher). 

Unable to find a buyer, Tata applied to RBI to purchase the shares themselves as previously agreed. The regulator refused, saying such a transfer could not be made on a subsequent date at pre-determined share prices, going by the foreign exchange regulations. This denial created an impasse that led to the international arbitral proceedings, resulting in the June 22 award by LCIA against Tata. After the award, Tata had again approached RBI for permission to comply but this second application was also rejected by the regulator. 

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing on behalf of Tata, began Thursday’s arguments by clarifying the ambit of the challenge put forth by the Indian conglomerate. Khambata contended Tata was and had always been ready to pay the sum as adjudicated but also had an obligation to abide by the laws of in this regard.  

The Tata counsel provided the court a brief timeline of affairs leading to the present matter and highlighted RBI’s consistent denial for approval, both before and after the LCIA award. Citing relevant case law, Khambata attempted to convince the court that such a stance by the regulator had created a situation frustrating the earlier agreement between the parties, as well as the arbitral adjudication that followed, both of which had to be in conformity with Indian law. 

As such, he argued, enforcement of the award was rendered impossible, in line with Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and in violation of the fundamental policy of India. “If this award is enforced, it allows companies in all such situations to bypass Indian law,” said Khambata in court. 

The Tata counsel mentioned how the transfer of shares at pre-determined prices required special regulatory permission, after a 2013 RBI circular prohibiting assured returns for foreign entities. And, that the LCIA award had erroneously excluded the applicability of Indian regulations while arriving at its conclusion, holding Tata unconditionally liable to pay. Khambata also argued the award had masked the performance of the prohibited transfer by terming it ‘damages’. Equity investments, he contended, were always subject to risks, both regulatory and in the market.

To this, the RBI counsel interjected to inform the court that such a transfer could not take place even with a special permission, as provisions of the and underlying RBI circulars rendered such a transaction mandatorily prohibitive.

“This has become a test case for all such matters in the future”, judge Muralidhar remarked after hearing the arguments. The bench also asked the Tata counsel whether any alternative solution (in line with the good faith clauses in the agreement) could be advanced. The court then issued a formal notice to RBI 

As a show of good faith, had on July 29 deposited the entire amount of the award with the HC registrar, subject to the final verdict. has filed similar enforcement applications in courts in the UK and the US to realise the June 22 arbitral adjudication.  


RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

HC seeks RBI clarification in Tata-DoCoMo case

Court also asks Tata for alternative solution; next hearing on Dec 21

Court also asks Tata for alternative solution; next hearing on Dec 21
On Thursday, arguments on behalf of were heard by the high court here, against the enforcement of a $1.17 billion London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award in favour of Japanese telecom giant NTT DoCoMo. The HC decided to issue a notice to the Reserve (RBI) to clarify its stance in the ongoing dispute. The next date for the hearing is December 21.

The arbitral award is the result of a two-year tussle between the two corporate behemoths on Tata Teleservices, their failed joint venture (JV), in which holds 26 per cent stake. By their initial agreement, was given a choice of exiting the venture after three years at a pre-determined share price. Its stake was to be bought by Tata or an external buyer, which the Indian company was to arrange. 

In 2014, after the collaboration failed to generate the desired returns, decided to exercise the exit option. By then, the share price of Tata Tele had plummeted far below the earlier decided exit amount (Rs 58 or fair market value, whichever was higher). 

Unable to find a buyer, Tata applied to RBI to purchase the shares themselves as previously agreed. The regulator refused, saying such a transfer could not be made on a subsequent date at pre-determined share prices, going by the foreign exchange regulations. This denial created an impasse that led to the international arbitral proceedings, resulting in the June 22 award by LCIA against Tata. After the award, Tata had again approached RBI for permission to comply but this second application was also rejected by the regulator. 

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing on behalf of Tata, began Thursday’s arguments by clarifying the ambit of the challenge put forth by the Indian conglomerate. Khambata contended Tata was and had always been ready to pay the sum as adjudicated but also had an obligation to abide by the laws of in this regard.  

The Tata counsel provided the court a brief timeline of affairs leading to the present matter and highlighted RBI’s consistent denial for approval, both before and after the LCIA award. Citing relevant case law, Khambata attempted to convince the court that such a stance by the regulator had created a situation frustrating the earlier agreement between the parties, as well as the arbitral adjudication that followed, both of which had to be in conformity with Indian law. 

As such, he argued, enforcement of the award was rendered impossible, in line with Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and in violation of the fundamental policy of India. “If this award is enforced, it allows companies in all such situations to bypass Indian law,” said Khambata in court. 

The Tata counsel mentioned how the transfer of shares at pre-determined prices required special regulatory permission, after a 2013 RBI circular prohibiting assured returns for foreign entities. And, that the LCIA award had erroneously excluded the applicability of Indian regulations while arriving at its conclusion, holding Tata unconditionally liable to pay. Khambata also argued the award had masked the performance of the prohibited transfer by terming it ‘damages’. Equity investments, he contended, were always subject to risks, both regulatory and in the market.

To this, the RBI counsel interjected to inform the court that such a transfer could not take place even with a special permission, as provisions of the and underlying RBI circulars rendered such a transaction mandatorily prohibitive.

“This has become a test case for all such matters in the future”, judge Muralidhar remarked after hearing the arguments. The bench also asked the Tata counsel whether any alternative solution (in line with the good faith clauses in the agreement) could be advanced. The court then issued a formal notice to RBI 

As a show of good faith, had on July 29 deposited the entire amount of the award with the HC registrar, subject to the final verdict. has filed similar enforcement applications in courts in the UK and the US to realise the June 22 arbitral adjudication.  


image
Business Standard
177 22

HC seeks RBI clarification in Tata-DoCoMo case

Court also asks Tata for alternative solution; next hearing on Dec 21

On Thursday, arguments on behalf of were heard by the high court here, against the enforcement of a $1.17 billion London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) award in favour of Japanese telecom giant NTT DoCoMo. The HC decided to issue a notice to the Reserve (RBI) to clarify its stance in the ongoing dispute. The next date for the hearing is December 21.

The arbitral award is the result of a two-year tussle between the two corporate behemoths on Tata Teleservices, their failed joint venture (JV), in which holds 26 per cent stake. By their initial agreement, was given a choice of exiting the venture after three years at a pre-determined share price. Its stake was to be bought by Tata or an external buyer, which the Indian company was to arrange. 

In 2014, after the collaboration failed to generate the desired returns, decided to exercise the exit option. By then, the share price of Tata Tele had plummeted far below the earlier decided exit amount (Rs 58 or fair market value, whichever was higher). 

Unable to find a buyer, Tata applied to RBI to purchase the shares themselves as previously agreed. The regulator refused, saying such a transfer could not be made on a subsequent date at pre-determined share prices, going by the foreign exchange regulations. This denial created an impasse that led to the international arbitral proceedings, resulting in the June 22 award by LCIA against Tata. After the award, Tata had again approached RBI for permission to comply but this second application was also rejected by the regulator. 

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing on behalf of Tata, began Thursday’s arguments by clarifying the ambit of the challenge put forth by the Indian conglomerate. Khambata contended Tata was and had always been ready to pay the sum as adjudicated but also had an obligation to abide by the laws of in this regard.  

The Tata counsel provided the court a brief timeline of affairs leading to the present matter and highlighted RBI’s consistent denial for approval, both before and after the LCIA award. Citing relevant case law, Khambata attempted to convince the court that such a stance by the regulator had created a situation frustrating the earlier agreement between the parties, as well as the arbitral adjudication that followed, both of which had to be in conformity with Indian law. 

As such, he argued, enforcement of the award was rendered impossible, in line with Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and in violation of the fundamental policy of India. “If this award is enforced, it allows companies in all such situations to bypass Indian law,” said Khambata in court. 

The Tata counsel mentioned how the transfer of shares at pre-determined prices required special regulatory permission, after a 2013 RBI circular prohibiting assured returns for foreign entities. And, that the LCIA award had erroneously excluded the applicability of Indian regulations while arriving at its conclusion, holding Tata unconditionally liable to pay. Khambata also argued the award had masked the performance of the prohibited transfer by terming it ‘damages’. Equity investments, he contended, were always subject to risks, both regulatory and in the market.

To this, the RBI counsel interjected to inform the court that such a transfer could not take place even with a special permission, as provisions of the and underlying RBI circulars rendered such a transaction mandatorily prohibitive.

“This has become a test case for all such matters in the future”, judge Muralidhar remarked after hearing the arguments. The bench also asked the Tata counsel whether any alternative solution (in line with the good faith clauses in the agreement) could be advanced. The court then issued a formal notice to RBI 

As a show of good faith, had on July 29 deposited the entire amount of the award with the HC registrar, subject to the final verdict. has filed similar enforcement applications in courts in the UK and the US to realise the June 22 arbitral adjudication.  


image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard