Toggle navigation

Toggle navigationMENU

 ENGLISH

 FRANÇAIS

 ESPAÑOL

DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE  PDF

ANALYSIS, ITN  |  APRIL 13, 2012  |  PRABHASH RANJAN

The White Industries Arbitration: Implications for

India’s Investment Treaty Program

In November 2011, an arbitral tribunal found the Republic of India guilty of

violating  the India-Australia bilateral investment treaty (BIT). It

is the first known investment-treaty ruling against India, despite the fact that
the country has a mammoth portfolio of BITs with more than 70 countries.
News of the award broke only in February 2012.[i] As is often the case with
investment-treaty disputes, the award was kept confidential. This is despite
the fact that the dispute is squarely in the public interest. Indeed, the award is
an indictment of India’s sovereign function, having ramifications both for the
executive and the judiciary.

This note wishes to unravel the implications of this ruling on two issues. First,
the nuances related to the interpretation of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN).
Second, the implications of the interpretation of the expropriation provision
for the Indian judiciary, particularly in light of the on-going debate in India on
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Essential facts of the case

White Industries obtained an arbitral award in its favour in a contractual

dispute with Coal India, an Indian public sector company, and sought
enforcement of the award before the Delhi High Court. Simultaneously, Coal
India approached the Calcutta High Court to have the award set aside, and the
request was granted. White Industries appealed to the Supreme Court in 2004
and the final decision is still pending.

In 2010, White Industries took the matter to arbitration on the grounds that
the inordinate delay in Indian courts to enforce the arbitration award violates
the India-Australia BIT. White Industries argued that the delay violated the
provisions on fair and equitable treatment (FET), expropriation, MFN
treatment, and free transfer of funds.

The tribunal dismissed White Industries allegations related to violation of

FET, expropriation and free transfer of funds. However, the tribunal ruled that
India violated the MFN provision of the India-Australia BIT, and awarded
White Industries 4 million Australian dollars.

Most Favoured Nation

The tribunal found India guilty of violating the India-Australia BIT because
the Indian judicial system has been unable to deal with White Industries’
jurisdictional claim in over nine years. The tribunal held that the delay by
Indian courts violated India’s obligation to provide White Industries with an
“effective means’ of asserting claims and enforcing rights.” This is despite the
fact that the India-Australia BIT does not mention or include such a duty for
host states. The tribunal got around that by holding that White Industries
could borrow the ‘effective means’ provision present in the India-Kuwait
BIT[ii] by relying on the MFN provision of the India-Australia BIT.[iii]

The tribunal overruled India’s objection that such borrowing will

“fundamentally subvert the carefully negotiated balance of the BIT.”[iv] The
tribunal held that this balance can be subverted only if the MFN provision is
used to borrow a beneficial dispute resolution provision from another BIT.
[v] The tribunal held that borrowing beneficial substantive provision from a
third-party treaty does not subvert the negotiated balance of the BIT, but
rather achieves the result intended by the incorporation of the MFN provision.
[vi]

It is important to note that of the MFN provision in the India-Australia BIT

recognises certain exceptions, such as not extending any treatment,
preferences or privileges arising from a) customs union, economic union or a
free trade agreement; b) the provisions of a double taxation agreement; and c)
any legislation relating wholly or mainly to taxation.[vii] The BIT also has a
general exception to the entire treaty, and hence to MFN provision as well,
which states that the host country can deviate from its BIT obligations in order
to adopt measures necessary for the protection of its own essential security
interests or for the prevention of diseases or pests.

None of these exceptions were applicable to India in this case, and hence
White Industries was permitted to benefit from the broadly worded MFN
provision. In light of this ruling, it is pertinent that India reviews the MFN
provisions in its BITs, which are often defined in an expansive manner
without adequate exceptions. Furthermore, an important implication of this
ruling is that inordinate delays in Indian courts in disposing matters related to
a foreign investor can, potentially, violate India’s BIT obligations not due to
the violation of ‘denial of justice,’ but due to a violation of the ‘effective means’
standard, which requires a lower threshold than ‘denial of justice.’ Further, a
tribunal can find a violation of the ‘effective means’ standard even when the
concerned BIT does not contain such a provision as long as it contains a broad
MFN provision, which some tribunals will use to import investor guarantees
from other BITs.

Expropriation   

For reasons specific to this case, the tribunal did not agree with White
Industries that India had expropriated its investment. However, the tribunal
made two important points. First, the tribunal disagreed with India that “the
only form of contractual rights that are capable of being expropriated are
those that are a form of intangible property.”[viii] The tribunal stated that all
contractual rights, whether tangible or intangible, are capable of being
expropriated.[ix] Second, and more importantly, the tribunal said that the
expropriation claim is unfounded because Indian courts had yet to rule on
Coal India’s application to set aside the foreign arbitral award, and, therefore,
the award has not been “taken.”[x] Thus, the tribunal clearly indicated that a
foreign arbitral award is an ‘investment’ under the BIT and that the setting
aside of such valid foreign awards could constitute expropriation under the
BIT.
This observation has implications for the debate in India over the role of the
judiciary in enforcement of ICA awards. India’s higher judiciary has been
expansively interpreting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (A&C
Act) to set aside or not enforce ICA awards in India.[xi] The expansive
interpretation of the A&C Act by the Indian judiciary implies that an award
rendered anywhere can be set aside by an Indian court if it goes against: (i)
fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice
or morality or it patently violates Indian law.[xii] It is important for India to
understand the ramification of this aspect of the ruling, as it potentially turns
India’s judiciary’s interpretation of the A&C Act into a breach of international
law.[xiii]

Conclusion

India has been entering into BITs without fully understanding their
implications. The sanguine belief in the Indian official establishment is that
Indian BITs adequately balance investment protection with India’s ability to
exercise sovereign powers. This erroneous belief has been strengthened over
the years because India’s regulatory actions have so rarely been challenged
under BITs. It is a mistake, however, to believe that all is well with Indian
investment treaties.

The White Industries award draws attention to the fact that BIT provisions
like the MFN clause are often vague and broad. This enabled White Industries
to indulge in treaty shopping and arrive at a result that India did not
anticipate. The ruling also clearly demonstrates how sovereign functions of the
Indian judiciary could amount to violation of India’s BITs. Hence, one expects
that this ruling should trigger a critical review of India’s BIT program. Such a
review is imperative in light of India’s deepening integration with the global
economy and increasing number of new trade and investment agreements,
such as the India-EU free trade agreement.

Author: Prabhash Ranjan is a PhD Candidate in Law at King’s College London.

Some parts of this article draw from a previous column of the author on the
same topic – ‘Revisiting India’s Bilateral Investment Treaties’, The Financial
Express, 23 February 2012, available
at http://www.financialexpress.com/news/revisiting-indias-bilateral-
treaties/915480/0
[i] See L E Peterson, ‘India is held Liable for Investment Treaty Breach Due
to Protracted Judicial Delays Suffered by Foreign Investors’, 7 February
2012, Investment Arbitration Reporter available at
http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120207_2

[ii] Article 4(5) of the India-Kuwait BIT provides that ‘each contracting party
shall…provide effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights with
respect to investments…’.

[iii] Article 4(2) of the India-Australia BIT provides the MFN provision

according to which, ‘a contracting party shall at all times treat investments
in its territory on a basis no less favourable than that accorded to
investments or investors of any third country’.

[iv] See para 11.2.1, White Industries v India

[v] Id, para 11.2.2

[vi] Id, para 11.2.3 and 11.2.4

[vii] See Article 4(4) of the India-Australia BIT.

[viii] Paras 12.3.1 and 12.3.2, White Industries v India

[ix] Id

[x] Para 12.3.6, White Industries v India

[xi]  For more on this issue see A. P. Rebello “Of Impossible Dreams and
Recurring Nightmares: The Set Aside of Foreign Awards in India” (2010) 6
(1) Cambridge Student Law Review, 274; A. N. Jain “Yet Another Misad-
Venture by Indian Courts in Venture Judgement” (2010) 26 Arbitration
International, 251; S. Sattar, “National Courts and International Arbitration:
A Double Edged Sword?” (2010) 27 Journal of International Arbitration 51,
64-65; P Ranjan and D Raju “The Enigma of Enforceability of Investment
Treaty Arbitration Awards in India” (2011), 6 (1) Asian Journal of
Comparative Law, Article 5.

[xii] See the following cases on enforcement of arbitral awards in India

– Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. AIR 2002 SC 1432; Venture
Global Engineering v. Satyam Computers, (2008) 4 SCC 190; ONGC v. Saw
Pipes, AIR 2003 SC 2629.
 [xiii] On this issue also see Saipem S.p.A v The People’s Republic of
Bangladesh ICSID Case No ARB/05/7, 30 June 2009.

 TAGS
 EXPROPRIATION
 INVESTMENT DEFINITION
 MFN

Share16

Tweet

Share

16SHARES

Post navigation
 PREVIOUS ARTICLEPrevious article:Defining an ICSID Investment: Why
Economic Development Should be the Core Element
NEXT ARTICLE Next article:Venezuela’s Withdrawal From ICSID: What it
Does and Does Not Achieve
Search:

SUBSCRIBE
Keep updated with the ITN newsletter or subscribe to our RSS feed

Follow ITN on Twitter 

 SECTOR
 COUNTRY / ORG
 TOPIC
 INSTRUMENT
AGRICULTURE AND
FISHERIES ENERGY HEALTHCARE INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFACTURING MININ
G NATURAL RESOURCES OIL AND GAS RENEWABLE ENERGY TOURISM

Quarterly Journal Archives

Quarterly Journal Archives Select Month  March 2020   December

2019   October 2019   September 2019   August 2019   June 2019   April
2019   March 2019   December 2018   October 2018   July 2018   April
2018   December 2017   September 2017   June 2017   March 2017   December
2016   August 2016   May 2016   February 2016   December 2015   November
2015   August 2015   May 2015   February 2015   November 2014   September
2014   August 2014   May 2014   January 2014   September 2013   June
2013   March 2013   January 2013   November 2012   October 2012   July
2012   April 2012   January 2012   October 2011   July 2011   April
2011   December 2010   September 2010   May 2010   April 2010   March
2010   February 2010   January 2010   December 2009   November
2009   October 2009   September 2009   August 2009   July 2009   June
2009   May 2009   April 2009   March 2009   February 2009   January
2009   December 2008   November 2008   October 2008   September
2008   August 2008   July 2008   April 2008   March 2008   February
2008   January 2008   December 2007   November 2007   October
2007   September 2007   August 2007   July 2007   June 2007   May
2007   April 2007   March 2007   February 2007   January 2007   December
2006   November 2006   October 2006   September 2006   August 2006   July
2006   June 2006   May 2006   April 2006   March 2006   February
2006   January 2006   December 2005   November 2005   October
2005   September 2005   August 2005   July 2005   June 2005   May
2005   April 2005   March 2005   February 2005   January 2005   December
2004   November 2004   October 2004   September 2004   August 2004   July
2004   June 2004   May 2004   April 2004   March 2004   February
2004   January 2004   December 2003   November 2003   October
2003   September 2003   August 2003   July 2003   June 2003   May
2003   April 2003  
Investment Treaty News is an online journal published by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development

ISSN 2519-8467 (English ed.)

ISSN 2519-8823 (French ed.)
ISSN 2519-8831 (Spanish ed.)

BACK TO TOP
© 2020 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
PRIVACY POLICY

Share16

Tweet
 Share

16SHARES

Skip to content

AcademikeX
Articles on legal issues [ISSN: 2349-9796]

Latest

Triple Test for Grant of Anticipatory Bail’s in India

How to Report Dowry Related Violence?

 Home

 ADR

 Case Comments On White Industries V. Republic Of India

Case Comments on White Industries v. Republic Of India

On February 3, 2015 By amoolya

Aditya P Arora

RGNUL, Patiala

“Editor’s Note: The paper analyses the case of White Industries v. Republic of India
which was the first judgment on investment ruling of Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)
for India. India lost the case, but the experience has led to deliberations on a better,
stronger version of the model BIT for India.”

ABSTRACT

Investment Arbitration in India is undergoing a sea of change as the bilateral treaties

entered into have broad ambiguous provisions which enable the foreign national to
bend and mould the provisions according to their whims and fancy. If the government
does not intervene in the mechanism of investment arbitration in India at the earliest,
the country will face a major economic and commercial setback. The significance of
this would be the in depth analysis of Investment Arbitration and deduction made by the
author upon extensive perusal of the judgment itself and comments of the author upon
the ratio and obiter of the case as the author would reproduce various extracts of the
judgment and bring out the thought process of the judiciary whilst changing the law in
entirety. Thus giving a practical presentation of the changing scenario of BITs and
Investment Arbitration in International Commercial Arbitration. The utility would be that
the readers will be updated with the current change in scenario post the first BIT award
passed by the Apex Court against India. There will be a major turn of events owing to
the White Industries case which will be very aptly discussed. The readers will also be
exposed to its implications and limitations.

INTRODUCTION

The objective behind this study is to understand how judgments pertaining to

investment arbitration are to be implemented in the real life litigation and court practice.
It is now established that the White Industries case has far reaching consequences
which would completely alter the scene of international arbitration in India. Therefore,
an award in White industries also serves as a reminder of the need for smoothening out
the creases in Indian arbitration law. The judgment has to be analysed academically as
well as from the practitioner’s point of view. It is amusing to note that these points of
view are far apart. The merits which an academician sees in the case are demerits for a
legal practitioner. These anomalies have to be resolved.

The judgment has to be analysed academically as well as from the practitioner’s point
of view. It is amusing to note that these points of view are far apart. The merits which
an academician sees in the case are demerits for a legal practitioner. These anomalies
have to be resolved.

Even though the judgment is not immune from criticism however it’s a huge positive
step taken in improving the laws relating to Bilateral Treaties in international arbitration
in India as the unanticipated result has cautioned India to think twice before entering
into any such treaty with vague clauses again. The judgment covers various aspects of
an international arbitration like the treaty signed, the clauses to be complied with (MFN
Clause in this case), the enforcement of award in the other country, and issues like
definition of investment and expropriation have been discussed at length. Overall the
positives of the judgment outweigh its negatives and therefore one may very well
conclude that the Supreme Court is accelerating in the right direction and interpreting
the law in its true form as well as the spirit.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1989, White Industries, an Australian mining company, entered into a long-term
contract with Coal India Limited (Coal India), a State-owned Indian company, for the
supply of equipment to and the development of a coal mine near Piparwar in India’s
north-eastern state of Bihar (the Mining Contract). Disputes relating to bonus and
penalty payments as well as to the quality of the extracted coal arose between Coal
India and White Industries, prompting the latter to commence arbitral proceedings
under the ICC Arbitration Rules in 1999. In a majority decision, the ICC tribunal awarded
a USD 4.08 million (US Dollar Four Decimal Zero Eight Million) to White Industries in May
2002 (the “ICC Award”).

In September 2002, Coal India applied to the Calcutta High Court to set aside the ICC
Award under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (US Dollar Four Decimal Zero
Eight Million) (the set-aside proceedings). Nearly simultaneously, White Industries
applied to the High Court of New Delhi to enforce the ICC Award in India (the
enforcement proceedings). Both proceedings experienced significant delays. The
enforcement proceedings were eventually stayed pending a decision in the set-aside
proceedings. White Industries appealed to the Supreme Court; in the meantime (in
2006) the High Court of New Delhi stayed the enforcement proceedings. For about ten
years White Industries could not get any relief.

After years of fruitless attempts to enforce the ICC Award in the Indian courts, White
Industries commenced arbitration proceedings against India in 2010 under the India-
Australia BIT dated February 29, 1999 (the “BIT Arbitration”), claiming that the inordinate
delay resulted in a breach of the provisions on fair and equitable treatment (“FET”),
expropriation, the “effective means” standard incorporated by the MFN clause and free
transfer of funds under the treaty. That gives rights to Australian or Indian investors in
each other’s country, and where those rights are infringed, the investor can begin
arbitration proceedings against the Government of the other contracting State directly.
Article 12 of the said Treaty, inter alia, provides for reference of a dispute to an ad hoc
tribunal in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976, with certain
modifications. White Industries has reported claimed that the action of the Indian courts
and of Coal India

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Contentions of White Industries

That the inordinate delay of the enforcement of the foreign award has caused a
violation of fair and equitable treatment (FET), expropriation, MFN, fair and equitable
treatment (FET), expropriation, MFN and free transfer of funds of the India-Australia BIT
and transfer of funds of the India-Australia BIT.
Contentions of the Republic of India

That the present mining contract was nothing but a commercial contract wherein the
main BIT obligation was the supply of goods and services. Hence it did not come within
the four walls of investment and thus there has been no violation as alleged by the
appellants.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

 Whether the commercial contract between India and Australia was an investment under Article
1 of the Indian-Australian BIT?
 Whether Indian Government committed a violation of expropriation, MFN, fair and equitable
treatment (FET), expropriation, MFN and free transfer of funds of the India-Australia BIT and
transfer of funds of the India-Australia BIT?

CRUX OF THE JUDGMENT

The tribunal held the Indian Government liable for violating the effective means
standard according to which effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights
to the investing country have to be provided by the host country. Since the Most
Favoured Nation clause wasn’t expressly mentioned the tribunal decided that effective
means standard is less demanding and can be squarely applied to the present facts in
hand and the justice can be delivered. The tribunal noted that the effective means
standard means that the system of law in which the redressal is sought is working
objectively and matching the international standards and that the system works
properly and effectively at the time when the dispute arises or any redressal is sought.
The system should function without any loop holes. Thus the contention of the
respondent in the present case that since the Indian legal system is well known for its
delayed justice provision hence there was no ineffective mechanism when White
Industries sought enforcement of award. It was a usual manner in which legal system
functions in India and White Industries should have had information about the same and
should not be creating such a hue and cry for the same was outright rejected.

Thus the tribunal had no second doubts about holding that the effective means
provision has not been properly considered by the court but the tribunal dismissed other
contentions of the respondents like FET violation wherein the contentions of the
appellants were that the principle of legitimate expectation had been violated by the
Indian courts as they expected the ICC award to be immediately enforced and the
application of the Coal India to set aside the award would be dismissed immediately but
for over nine years they were just hanging and waiting for justice which was least
expected under such a bilateral treaty .However, the tribunal held that such legitimate
expectations would only have arisen out of a specific, “unambiguous affirmation to the
effect by India,” [1] which was not the case.

The other issue raised by the appellants were that their investments were being
expropriated by the Indian Government if the same is not set aside but the tribunal ruled
otherwise stating that that the primary constituents to an expropriation would be the
devaluation or loss to the value of the property to deteriorate or the rights be
substantially effected since none of the pre requisites are met with and the investment
in no way is affected hence since the award has not actually been disposed off hence
no expropriation happened till date.

Thus the only violation ruled against the White industries was of that of the effective
means standard due to delay in enforcing the award.

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS OF THE AUTHOR ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF JUDGMENT

The recent ruling of the White Industries Dispute is in much hype for a reason. There are
some major after effects of the White Industries:

 Since an exorbitant amount of money has to be given by the Government of India to the White
Industries this will affect the public exchequer as the money is going from the government and
ultimately it’s the people’s loss as all the money was paid by the common man via tax. Hence it’s
the people who are paying for the negligence of the government.
 Just like in the present case if there are more such issues where the Indian judiciary is taking a
long time in delivering judgments relating to the international investment agreements this can
have an impact on India’s treaty obligations and terms with the other nations ultimately the
commerce of the nation is put at stake.
 Another important issue which this judgment highlights is that the tribunal dismissed the
grounds of expropriation as the matter i.e. Coal India’s application wasn’t decided upon yet and
the ICC award was not set aside even after 9 years and thus held that since the contractual
rights and the value of the contract money has not been affected yet hence there is no
expropriation clearly hinting that such an award would amount to be an investment and thus
the judiciary should be careful while dealing with investment awards in future as they can have
major consequences.
 The ruling has another important message for the higher judiciary that has expansively
interpreted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 to set aside or not enforce ICA awards in
India. While dismissing White Industries’ expropriation claim, the tribunal said that this claim is
unfounded because Indian courts are yet to dispose of Coal India’s application to set aside the
foreign arbitral award and that the award has not been ‘taken’ or set aside. Thus, the tribunal
clearly indicated that a foreign arbitral award is an ‘investment’ under the BIT and that the
setting aside of such valid foreign awards could constitute expropriation under the BIT. This
observation is vital in light of the debate in India over the role of the judiciary in the
enforcement of ICA awards.
  Another observation which we need to keep in mind while entering into future agreements and
acting upon it is that the court held that unlike what is the belief ,not just tangible but also
tangible properties can amount to expropriation and since in the present case the machinery
and other such technical support was provided hence if the award was set aside India would
have been made liable for expropriation.
 Most importantly, the problem with this ruling is that it has broken the trust of people in the
BITs which bragged about creating a balance between the investment protection, economic
development and India’s sovereign power. The problem with such BITs is that provisions like
Most Favoured Nations which have never been properly included and vague provisions like
effective means are given which are so open to interpretation that the parties go treaty
shopping and find the most convenient and befitting treaty which helps them get maximum
compensation this is affecting the Indian economy.
 The award has given a renewed confidence to the investors regarding the protection of their
investment. A bypass has been created which subverts the delayed judicial process. it opens up
another route for investors outside of the Indian courts. If investors face many years’ delay in
enforcing arbitral awards, they may pursue the Government of India directly. Of course, in order
to do this the investors would need to have access to a similar BIT as the Australia-India BIT, or
the Kuwait-India BIT. India is a party to over 80 BITs with other countries, including Australia,
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, Sweden and United Kingdom

The Bhatia international[2] and Satyam computer[3] were two of the most bitterly

criticized judgments pertaining to Indian Arbitration law. They were solely responsible
for the delay and inability of White Industries to enforce the ICC award. The Calcutta
High court had set aside the foreign award following the ratio laid down in the Satyam
Computer case mainly. The critics of these judgments have been fairly vindicated by the
tribunal’s award. The award is more like a slap on the face of the judiciary for
overstepping its line while interpreting statutes more liberally than what is permitted. It
will be interesting to see how courts now interpret the statutes in future knowing that
any verdict hindering the enforcement of foreign award will attract grave consequence
under BIT‟s with more harsh penalties.

The tribunal in the case concluded that the ICC Award was enforceable under the laws
of India, but it was silent on the breach. This means it was expected from the judiciary
that they would give an opinion on whether not upholding the award resulted in breach
of New York Convention. It would have been interesting had the tribunal given its
opinion on this matter as well. In fact as an alternative White Industries could have
enforced the awards in any of the other New York convention countries where Indian
government has its assets. To further what the tribunal is silent on, the non
enforcement of foreign award is indeed in default of the New York convention as Article
V of the New York convention contains an exhaustive list of grounds on which a foreign
award can be set aside by the courts of the country where enforcement is sought.
Edited by Amoolya Khurana

[1] White Industries v. Republic of India, Final Award, November 30 , 2011.

th

[2] Bhatia International v. Respondent: Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr., (2002) 2 SCR 411.

[3] Satyam computer Case, Civil appeal number 3678 of 2007.

Related Posts:

Promissory Estoppel

Medical Negligence

The Crumbling Pillar of Democracy: Is the Media…

 Rights of Juvenile in India

Gender Neutrality: Rights of one, abrogation of another?

Scope of Enforcement of DPSPs

Comparison Of Trial Procedure Between Indian Courts…

 Role Of Government In Public Health: Current…

ADR International Treaty Arbitrationbilateral investment treaty

Post navigation
Previous Post:

Next Post:

Leave a Reply

Top of Form

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Bottom of Form

SEARCH

Top of Form

Search for:

Bottom of Form
CATEGORIES

Top of Form

Categories  Select Category  -Direct Taxation  ADR  Arbitration & Conciliation Act  Banking Law 
Bankruptcy & Insolvency  Biotechnology Law  Business Laws  Civil Procedure Code & Law of Limitation 
Code of Criminal Procedure  competition  Competition Law  Constitutional & Administrative Law 
Consumer Protection Act  Contract Law  Copyright  Corporate Finance  Corporate Governance  Criminal
Law  Criminology and Victimology  Economic Offences  Economics  Environmental Law  Family Law 
Gender and Law  Humanitarian and Refugee Law  Humanities  Indian Evidence Act  Indian Penal Code 
Information Technology Law  Insurance Law  Intellectual Property Rights  International Commercial
Arbitration  International Environmental Law  International Human Rights Law  International Labour
Laws  International Law  International Organization  International Trade Law  International Treaty
Arbitration  Interpretation of Statutes  Investment Law  IPR in Pharma Industry  Jurisprudence  Labour
Law  Land Acquisition  Law and Economics  Law of the Sea  Law of Torts  Legal History  Legal Methods 
Legal Services Authorities Act/Lok Adalats  Maritime Law  Media & Cyber Law  Mediation  Merger &
Acquisition  Offences Against Child & Juvenile Offence  Patents  Penology & Victimology  Political
Science  Private International Law  Probation and Parole  Procedural Laws  Property Law  Public
International Law  Securities Law  Sociology  Space Law  Special Contract  Tax Law  Trademarks 
Uncategorized  White Collar Crime  Women & Criminal Law 

Bottom of Form

RECENTCOMMENTS

Mohammed Faris ap on Women Security and Legal Safeguards in India

Priyanka on Illegitimacy under Hindu Law

sachin on Illegitimacy under Hindu Law

Jatin on Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal

Liberty
Gurpinder kaur on “Goods” under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930
ADVERTISEMENTS
RECENT POSTS

Gender Neutrality: Rights of one, abrogation of another?

Triple Test for Grant of Anticipatory Bail’s in India

How to Report Dowry Related Violence?

Retribution: Indispensable to Criminal Justice

The Crumbling Pillar of Democracy: Is the Media Losing its Own Voice?

DISCLAIMER

NOTE: Articles published on this website are for information only. They do not construe
legal advice.

Copyright © 2020 Lawctopus All right reserved. | Theme: OnlineMag by eVisionThemes