Delhi HC Decision on NTT DoCoMo-Tata Sons Share Purchase Agreement

Decision by the Delhi High Court on the validity of the Share Purchase Agreement between NTT DoCoMo and Tata Sons

The Delhi High Court has by its order dated April 28 2017 upheld the conclusion by the London Court of International Arbitration Tribunal in the arbitration matter referred to it on the validity of the clauses in the Share Purchase Agreement between NTT DoCoMo and Tata Sons.

Certain questions come in the wake of the above that remain unclear at the moment:

√ The SHA has been verified by the Delhi HC and found that the clauses therein have not violated any applicable law

• • Can the Indian party agree to guarantee to a nonresident buyer at a price not less than 50% of the original investment without any subjectivity to the FEMA 20 regulations?

√ The London Court of International Arbitration Tribunal has held that section 56 of the Indian Contract Act that makes a contract impossible to perform is void does not apply to the performance of clause 5.7.2 of SHA ( which requires Tata to find a Nonresident buyer at a price not less than 50% of original investment)

• • The AT in its order mentions that the parties Tata might not find a buyer at the Sale Price because a 26% holding in an unlisted company is illiquid; licensing restrictions might prevent Tata from increasing its holding in TTSL; or there might be a requirement for special permission from RBI.” The parties must have intended that Tata could only avail itself of those alternatives if it could perform in fact and in law
  • In that context, when the SHA was entered into knowing fully well that the first part of the obligation cannot be performed, is that hit by the section 56?
  • If both parties were aware of the impossibility, then under second para to section 56, the promisee (NTT DoCoMo) is not entitled to compensation). But the AT has chosen to treat the breach by Tata in finding a suitable buyer at the agreed sale price as eligible to damages

√ Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 provides for opposition to execution of a foreign award under section 48(2) if the Court finds that—

• • (a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or
  • (b) The enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India.
  • Is not remittance against the current Regulations of FEMA 20, contrary to Public policy of India?

√ Section 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 – an agreement not enforceable in law is void

• • Both the AT and the Delhi HC have consistently maintained that the obligation under the SHA is for Tata to find a nonresident buyer at the agreed sale price and since Tata has failed , there is breach of agreement
  • There is nothing unenforceable in the agreement
  • But the same AT points out that both the parties know that it is only Tata who can avail itself of the alternatives by agreeing to procure at the agreed price if it could perform in fact and in law.
  • Since the first part is known to both parties as not performable and the second part is restricted by Exchange control regulations, is not the clause 5.7.2 hot by section 2 (g) of the ICA?

√ The AT award maintains that the payment contemplated is damages for non-performance of the first part of the obligation on Tata and hence does not require approval by RBI

• • The damages is for non-performance by Tata due to its failure to find a non-resident buyer at the agreed sale price
  • The second part is that Tata will buy in the event of failure of first part
  • The AT has recognized that the parties were aware of the fact that Tata will not be able to find a non-resident buyer since the investment in an unlisted company is illiquid, subject to license conditions and would require exchange control approvals
  • In the context, any compliance by Tata by offering to buy at the agreed sale price would definitely have attracted the RBI permission requirement and so the transaction is effectively in the nature of a Capital account transaction and not that of a current account transaction
  • The Delhi HC while passing an order seeking to execute the AT award has chosen to agree in effect to the conclusion by the AT that it is an award of damages and not require RBI approval.
  • Should it not have attributed to itself the responsibility of checking whether it is really a current account transaction and not require RBI approval?
  • The liability is linked to performance which is known ab-initio as one that would be performed only by Tata which event would have triggered RBI approval, is essentially a Capital account transaction related and would require the RBI approval. Should Delhi HC not seen beyond the AT award to check independently the character of the transaction under FEMA?

√ It may be pertinent to note section 13 of Code of Civil procedure 1908 When foreign judgment will not be conclusive— A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—

 (c) Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

 (f) Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

• • Subsection (c) and (f) look to be relevant when the exchange control provisions apply

√ Under Rule 8(4) of Order I of CPC –Parties of suits – , my reading suggests that RBI could be one of the parties seeking to intervene in the Execution Petition of the AT.

• • It says -No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff’s expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2).
  • It automatically provides that RBI needs to be issued notice
  • This is a suit seeking execution of the award
  • Under Order 1 , Rule 1, RBI could be a party to the suit ( whether Intervention Application can be a suit in a case seeking execution proceedings of a foreign AT is a matter to be addressed)
    • Rule 1 Order I of CPC states -Who may be joined as plaintiffs— All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where— (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
  • RBI fits in both the conditions
  • But RBI is excluded quoting Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996

√ The Delhi HC has admitted that there exists a gap in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, 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

√ RBI has not placed before the Court any requirement for any permission of RBI having to be obtained for Docomo to receive the money as damages in terms of the Award.

• • Does this mean that RBI was fully convinced that the character of the transaction is on Capital account and this is covered under requirements of FEMA 20 and so there is no need to present any requirement of its approval for the remittance if treated as damages?
  • Also will the RBI’s presenting such requirement not confirm that the remittance is damages and not on Capital account? RBI must have realised that the transaction’s nature is purely on Capital account and hence no fresh requirements for approvals need to be presented to the court

√ The Delhi HC quotes that the law under Arbitration does not require RBI’s intervention to be a pre requisite before any International AT award could be executed as in the case of Mergers and amalgamations under section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 requiring that the Central Government’s objections if any should be considered by the Company court

• • It has already recorded that it is a gap and require specific procedural amendment of the Arbitration Act in this regard

√ The London Court of International Arbitration is not obliged to see the SHA from the point of FEMA and may be inclined to check the agreement purely from the contractual point

• • Should not the Indian Court see from the Exchange control point of view also?
  • This is considering that section 48(2) provides for the court to refuse if the Court finds that— (a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or (b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India

√ The SHA was entered into between the parties on 25^th March 2009 whereby an investment by Docomo of US $ 2.5billion was made. The trigger notice requiring Tata to facilitate the exit at the agreed price of 50% of original investment was issued on 7^th July 2014. The reason for DoCoMo to approach the LCIA was that the fair market value of the shares was a fraction of the agreed sale price and o Tata could not find a non-resident buyer.

• • If within a gap of 5 years the valuation has slid to a fraction of the agreed sale price, what could be said of the original valuation based on which the investment was made?
  • Was DoCoMo overzealous at the time of investment that it wanted to enter Indian Telecom market through an Indian partner that it overlooked the real conditions in the investee company and subsequently changed its plans over the years?

√ The Code of Civil procedure Under Part II Execution , section 44A coves foreign decrees:

• • Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory—
    • (1) Where a certified copy of decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court.
    • Explanation 2. — “Decree” with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect to a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.
  • Does that imply that order from a competent court in India is required to execute a foreign arbitration award and that it shall not be automatically executable in India unless the Indian court passes an order on the award?

√Finally RBI has not gone on appeal against the Delhi HC order. Is it because it is restrained by the provisions of sub rule 3A of Order XXIII of CPC that states:

• • Bar to suit— No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful

The facts of the case are briefly stated here:

(Source: Judgement Order by the Delhi HC in O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 7/2016 & IAs 14897/2016, 2585/2017)

1. A Shareholder Agreement („SHA‟) was entered into on 25th March 2009 between DoCoMo, Tata and Tata Teleservices Ltd. („TTSL‟). Clause 5.7 of the SHA inter alia 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 Sale Price i.e., 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.

2. Since TTSL did not deliver evidence to DoCoMo of its compliance of the Second Key Performance Indicator by 30th May 2014, a Trigger Notice was deemed to have been delivered by DoCoMo to Tata in terms of Clause 5.7.1 of the SHA.

3. In accordance with Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA, DoCoMo issued a Sale Notice to Tata and TTSL on 7th July 2014 calling upon Tata to find a buyer OMP (EFA) (Comm.) No. 7 of 2016 Page 3 of 41 or buyers to acquire the Sale Shares during the Sale Period in terms of Clause 5.7.2. The Sale Period terminated on 3rd December 2014.

4. As a result, disputes arose between the parties. In accordance with Clause 12.1.2(a) of the SHA, the disputes were referred to the senior officers duly designated by DoCoMo and Tata. However, they failed to reach any resolution.

5. By letter dated 3rd January 2015, DoCoMo commenced the arbitration proceedings by submitting its request for arbitration on 3rd January 2015 to the LCIA. By the said letter, DoCoMo nominated its Arbitrator. On 28th January 2015, Tata filed its response and counter-claim and also nominated its Arbitrator. The two Arbitrators jointly nominated the Chairman of the AT on 18th March 2015. On 23rd March 2015, the LCIA notified the parties that the LCIA Court had appointed the AT comprising the two respective nominees of the parties and the Chairman jointly appointed by them.

The Award of the AT- unanimous decision delivered on 22nd June 2016:

• Clause 5.7.2 of the SPA is to guarantee DoCoMo an exit at a minimum of 50% of the subscription price.
• This is the primary obligation of Tata to find a buyer or buyers of the Sale Shares on the terms that DoCoMo receives the Sale Price. The first part of that clause imposed on Tata an unqualified obligation to find a buyer of the Sale Shares on terms that DoCoMo received the Sale Price by 3rd December 2014.
• Tata might not find a buyer at the Sale Price because a 26% holding in an unlisted company is illiquid; licensing restrictions might prevent Tata from increasing its holding in TTSL; or there might be a requirement for special permission from RBI.”
• The second part of the clause began by providing that Tata “shall acquire or shall procure”, this was merely an alternative method by which Tata could perform its primary obligation under the first part
• The parties must have intended that Tata could only avail itself of those alternatives if it could perform in fact and in law
• Tata bore the risk that at the time of performance it was unable to find a willing buyer at the Sale Price because the market value of the Sale Shares had fallen. In that event, Tata might have been able to avoid a breach of its primary obligation by availing itself of one of the alternative methods of performance provided for in the second part of the clause; but if it was not able to do so, it remained in breach and was liable to pay DoCoMo damages.”
• The parties could have provided that Tata would be obliged to perform the second part of obligation under clause 5.7.2 of SHA ( offering to buy DoCoMo’s shares at the price agreed in the SHA) only if it obtained any necessary regulatory approval (“Subject to RBI consent”), as they did elsewhere in the SHA, but they chose not to. It was unlikely that the parties intended the obligation in the first part of Clause 5.7.2 (to guarantee DoCoMo exit at 50% of the original subscription price) to be discharged because an Indian buyer could not lawfully pay the Sale Price.
• DoCoMo had an unqualified right to a method of performance that admittedly did not violate applicable law. ( by Tata finding an alternate Non Resident buyer at the agreed price, then there will be no violation of Regulation 10(B)(2) of FEMA 20 because there will then be no outflow of Forex)
  • a non-resident purchaser was always able to buy the same share at the sale price in accordance with Regulation 9(2)(i) of FEMA 20;
  • a purchaser resident in India including Tata was also able to buy the OMP (EFA) (Comm.) No. 7 of 2016 Page 10 of 41 Sale Shares at their fair market value, determined in accordance with the pricing guidelines in force from time to time, in accordance with Regulation 10(B)(2) of FEMA 20.
• The market value of the Sale Shares had fallen, so no non-resident buyer was willing to pay the Sale Price; and the fair market value was a fraction of the Sale Price.
• The question whether a contractual obligation remains enforceable if it is subject to a requirement for special permission under the FEMA Regulations does not, therefore, arise.
• Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1956 („ICA‟) that a contract that becomes impossible or, unlawful at the time of performance is void does not apply to the obligations of Tata under the first part of clause 5.7.2 though the second part may have become impossible due to the approval being rejected by the RBI.
  • It held that “RBI‟s refusal of special permission did not render performance impossible. There were other methods of performance which were unaffected by the refusal.
  • The other methods are finding a non-resident buyer at the sale price
• The effect was not to extinguish DoCoMo’s rights under Clause 5.7.2; the first part remained valid and enforceable
• Tata has offered to pay DoCoMo the NPR Fair Value in its letters of 8 August 2014, 24 October 2014 and 23 February 2015 which were rejected by DoCoMo since the FMV was a fraction of Sale Price agreed under the SPA
  • DoCoMo insists that Tata perform the Sale Option without RBI’s permission
• DoCoMo was fully entitled to insist on performance and it acted reasonably in declining to accept the amount on offer.( Tata’s offer to pay the Fair market value of the shares which were a fraction of the Sale Price)
• Upon tendering the Sale Shares to Tata or its designee, DoCoMo is entitled to damages in the amount claimed, namely US$ 1,172,137,717. Tata should pay DoCoMo the amount due within 21 days
  • The Tribunal rejects the argument that an award of damages for breach of Clause 5.7.2 would amount to a circumvention of the relevant FEMA Regulations.
• Tata is liable for its failure to perform obligations which were the subject of general permissions under FEMA 20. The FEMA Regulations do not therefore excuse Tata from liability. The Tribunal expresses no view, however, on the question whether or not special permission of RBI is required before Tata can perform its obligation to pay DoCoMo damages in satisfaction of this Award.”

The award quantified:

— US$ 1,172,137,717 upon tender of the Sale Shares.

— US$ 65,276,963, being interest on the said USS 1,172,137,717 from 3 December 2014 to the date of this Award, c

— GBP 119,012.59 by way of Arbitration Costs and JPY 1,067,670,175 by way of Legal Costs.

— Interest at 3.5% per annum compounded with quarterly rests on the amount outstanding under this Award from 21 days after the date of this Award until payment.

 Now the Delhi HC judgement referring to the AT award and considering the consent agreement between DoCoMo and Tata and the issue of Intervention by RBI

Brief terms of the Consent terms agreed and signed on 20th and 23rd February, 2017 between NTT DoCoMo and Tata Sons submitted before the DL HC seeking to place it on record before the court:

> Parties submit to the court to take the consent terms on record and pass on order in terms of such consent terms

> Tatas have always wanted to fulfil its obligations as contemplated in the SHA

> Tatas withdraw their objections to the enforcement of the AT award in India

> Tatas agree to deposit the amounts as indicated in the AT with the Registrar General of the court

> The above deposit is subject to the court’s ruling on the Intervention Application by RBI

> It is also subject to regulatory clearances from Competition Commission of India and the NTT DoCoMo applying for and submitting Withholding Tax Certificate

> DoCoMo to nominate an Authorized Dealer ( Bank) for the transfer of funds to its designated Bank account

> DoCoMo should facilitate transfer of shares in de-materialized form to Tatas

> Pleading before this court that the AT award be declared as a decree passed by this court subject to the decision on RBI’s IA

> The NTT DoCoMo will suspend its proceedings before the London Queen’s court during the period of 6 months and if the moneys get paid during the said period after the receipt of favorable order from this court, permanently.

> The terms of the Consent Terms agreed are exhaustive and conclusive between the parties

RBI’s Intervention Application:

• The Share Purchase Agreement is unlawful or impossible of performance under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act,1872
• The AT award is on the clauses on the SPA
• The consent terms or compromise was entered into to give effect to the AT
• Order XXIII , Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure prohibits taking on record the said compromise that wants to give effect to the award by the AT which is based on the clauses in SPA that have become unlawful or being impossible of performance under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.
• Explanation to Rule 3 Order XXIII of CPC provides that
  • An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule
• The Award requires remission of money to an entity outside India, RBI‟s role cannot be negated “for any reason whatsoever
• Tata had applied to RBI on 1st July 2016 for permission to enforce the Award. This was opposed by DoCoMo by its letter dated 11th July 2016. By its communication dated 25th July 2016, RBI had rejected the request.
• Clause 5.7.2 of the SHA was in violation of Regulation 9 of the FEMA 20 which provided that the transfer should be at a price not exceeding the price arrived at, as per any internationally accepted pricing methodology for valuation of shares on a rational basis duly supported by a Chartered Accountant („CA‟) or a SEBI-registered Merchant Banker.
• The Award in question which dispensed with the obtaining of any OMP (EFA) (Comm.) No. 7 of 2016 Page 24 of 41 permission from RBI for transmission of the damages granted to DoCoMo was contrary to the fundamental policy of India and could not be enforced.

The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the right of parties to intervene

The AT award is between NTT DoCoMo and the Tatas. RBI is not a party to it. Hence it does not have any right to intervene. (DoCoMo’s counsel had quoted section 41(1) which in my understanding does not talk about prohibition of those who are not parties to the arbitration agreement from intervening)

• Section 48(1) of the Arbitration and conciliation ct,1996 states that the enforcement of an award can be refused by a party who according to section 2(h) of the said Act means a party to the arbitration agreement
• Since the AT award is between NTT DoCoMo and the Tatas, RBI was shown to have no locus standi to intervene against the implementation of the AT award.
• The proviso to Rule 3 does not contemplate any third party i.e., an entity which is not a party to the suit, coming forward to object to an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
  • But the court has omitted to check the below subsection 2 which prohibits enforcement of foreign awards under the conditions mentioned therein ( sub section(2) reproduced below)
  • Section 48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards – Under subsection (2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that—

a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or

b) The enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India.

• Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,—

a) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or

b) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law

c) It is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.

Explanation 2.—for the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute

• When parties have agreed to bring an end to the disputes between them which form the subject matter of the decree which is sought to be enforced, the Court cannot and should not come in the way of taking on record such compromise. It is true, however, that where the Court feels that the agreement is void or voidable under the ICA, it need not act on it and pass an order in terms thereof.
• There is no provision under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act or the CPC that requires to allow RBI to be joined as a party or intervener and heard.
• Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 envisaged notice being issued to the Central Government by the Company Court in order to give it an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings. There is no such statutory requirement that where the enforcement of an arbitral Award might result in remitting money to an non-Indian entity outside India, or to an account of a party outside India, RBI has to necessarily be heard on the validity of the Award
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• The court recognises that this is a gap in the Arbitration & conciliation Act 1996
• The AT has decided that the moneys payable by Tata are in the nature of damages which are in the nature of current account transactions that do not require permission from RBI
• Since the parties have no objection, the RBI approval is not required.
• RBI’s internal noting recommending to the Ministry of Finance to approve the payment as contemplated under the SHA is being quoted by the HC
• RBI did not contend that the SHA was void or illegal. Instead, it drew attention to the fact that the fair value of the shares was less than the Sale Price and that the transfer of the Sale Shares by DoCoMo to Tata at the Sale Price was not within the ambit of the general permission
• Based on MoF’s response to RBI’s recommendation, RBI communicated that the application to seek approval for payment of share purchase at the SHA agreed price is against the extant provisions of FEMA 20 – of the Regulations 9 and 10
• The award is in the nature of damages and the shares being returned are incidental and voluntary as they are of no use to DoCoMo
• RBI has not placed any material objecting to the payment of damages to DoCoMo
• Tata as a party to the AT award was objecting to it quoting the exchange control restrictions. Now that Tata has withdrawn its objections and signed the Consent terms, the award stands as long as it stands, there is no requirement to seek RBI approval to pay damages
• The enforceability of the AT award is not affected by either RBI’s refusal to accord exchange control approval or that its refusal has not been challenged

Validity of the SHA and the Award

• Investment of $ 2.5 billion by NTT DoCoMo is as per the approval conditions under FEMA 20
• Clause 5.7.2 provided inter alia that if 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.” The further condition was that Tata “shall have the obligation 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.
• SHA protected DoCoMo from not losing more than 50% of its investment
• RBI appears to have accepted that this was in the nature of a downside protection and was not in the nature of an assured return on its investment
• Right granted to DoCoMo under Clause 5.7.2 was not an issue of any “security” that would fall within the ambit of Regulations 4 and 5 of FEMA 20.
• It was held that the promise was valid and enforceable because sub-regulation 9(2) (i) of FEMA 20 permitted a transfer of shares from one non-resident to another non-resident at any price. The AT held that Tata could have lawfully performed its obligation to find a buyer at any price, including at a price above the shares’ market value, through finding a non-resident buyer. Its failure to do so was, according to the AT, a breach entitling DoCoMo to damages
• It was held that the promise was valid and enforceable because sub-regulation 9(2) (i) of FEMA 20 permitted a transfer of shares from one non-resident to another non-resident at any price. The AT held that Tata could have lawfully performed its obligation to find a buyer at any price, including at a price above the shares’ market value, through finding a non-resident buyer. Its failure to do so was, according to the AT, a breach entitling DoCoMo to damages
• The SHA, therefore, could not be said to be void or opposed to any Indian law including the FEMA, much less the ICA
  • Whether section 56 of ICA is applicable has not been considered
• FEMA allowed transfer of DoCoMo’s shares to another non-resident under general permissions

 Conclusion by Delhi HC 

• RBI’s Intervention Application dismissed indicating that it has no right to intervene in the execution of an award as it is not a party to it
• The London Court of International Arbitration award is taken on record and declared as the order of the Delhi HC
• The settlement will be guided by the Consent terms entered into between Docomo and Tata.