The question was whether the acts of the Andhra Pradesh government applied “directly” to an investment, and India’s challenge to treaty arbitration over the cancelled bauxite supply arrangement has failed in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which upheld the tribunal’s jurisdiction under the India-UAE investment treaty.
London: Upholding a ruling that revived Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority’s treaty claim over the cancelled supply of bauxite for an alumina project in Andhra Pradesh, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has dismissed an appeal by the Republic of India, holding that the actions of the Andhra Pradesh government applied directly to the authority’s investment [Republic of India v. Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority].
Judgment was handed down on 22 October 2026 at [2026] EWCA Civ 1358 by a Bench of Lord Justice Males, Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Miles, with Lord Justice Phillips giving the lead reasons. The appeal, heard on 11, 12 and 14 May 2026 with further written submissions in the following days, arose from a ruling of Mr Justice Robin Knowles in the Commercial Court.
The point on which the appeal turned
Two provisions of the treaty framed the argument. Article 10.2 covers measures underlying a dispute that the central or state governments take while exercising their executive powers. Article 1.8 defines a measure as any form of binding action taken by a contracting party under any law, rule or regulation and applied directly to an investment.
India argued that the investment was limited to the shareholding, and that the Andhra Pradesh executive action touched it only indirectly. The High Court had taken the opposite view, holding that measures apply directly to an investment where they are targeted at it.
The Court of Appeal’s answer
Lord Justice Phillips agreed with the outcome, though not every step of the reasoning below. He held:
“I therefore agree with the Judge that the actions of the GoAP in the present case applied directly to RAKIA’s Investment.”
India’s reliance on the treaty’s negotiating history did not find favour. The Court took the view that the treaty excludes effects that are merely indirect or consequential on government action directed elsewhere, but that the reading adopted gives meaning to the protections the treaty gives to investments in its substantive provisions.
The third ground
By a respondent’s notice, RAKIA had also run a third ground, that the treaty contained a freestanding offer to arbitrate. The Court declined to entertain it, describing it as follows:
“The third ground was an attempt to resurrect an argument that had been determined against RAKIA by the Tribunal and then expressly abandoned by RAKIA shortly before the hearing before the Judge.”
From a 2007 memorandum to a cancelled supply agreement
The story begins in February 2007, when the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Ras Al Khaimah signed a memorandum of understanding for an alumina refinery, smelter and power plant in Andhra Pradesh, with an estimated investment of US$2 billion. The Andhra Pradesh government undertook to direct the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) to supply bauxite from Jerrala. A bauxite supply agreement between APMDC and ANRAK Aluminium Limited was executed on 30 October 2008, conditional on clearances.
The Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) invested about US$42.5 million and held shares in ANRAK, 30 per cent at first and about 12 per cent after dilution. The India-UAE bilateral investment treaty was signed on 12 December 2013. A forest clearance was granted on 17 August 2015, but on 22 December 2015 the then Chief Minister announced that he would cancel the supply agreement after public protest. In April 2016 the State issued an order purporting to nullify the earlier government orders authorising the arrangement, and APMDC gave notice cancelling the agreement on 21 November 2016. RAKIA issued a notice of arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules on 8 December 2016.
The tribunal, and the High Court that set it aside
A tribunal of Lord Hoffmann (Chair), Justice Chandramauli and J. William Rowley QC held in its final award of 11 May 2022 that it had no jurisdiction. It assumed that the State’s acts diminished the value of RAKIA’s shareholding, but held their effect on RAKIA to be indirect. On 20 June 2025, Mr Justice Knowles set the award aside under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and remitted the dispute.
What the ruling leaves undecided
Only the tribunal’s jurisdiction has been decided. With the appeal dismissed, the dispute returns to the arbitral tribunal, which will have to decide on the merits whether India breached the treaty and whether any compensation is payable to RAKIA. The Court of Appeal has expressed no view on those questions.
Why the judgment matters
In one of the longest-running investment treaty disputes involving an Indian State government, the decision confirms that executive action by a State, aimed at an arrangement underpinning a foreign investor’s project, can fall within the treaty’s protections. It also shows how English courts, as the courts of the seat, scrutinise jurisdictional awards under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 afresh.
The positions summarised above are those of the parties as recorded in the judgment. The merits of RAKIA’s claim remain undecided.
Case Title: Republic of India v. Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 1358, Case No. CA-2025-002567
Bench: Lord Justice Males, Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Miles, Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Date of Judgment: October 22, 2026
Appearances: For the Republic of India, Sam Wordsworth KC, Siddharth Dhar KC and Peter Webster (instructed by Dentons UK and Middle East LLP); for RAKIA, Tim Otty KC, Ben Juratowitch KC and Benedict Tompkins (instructed by Freshfields LLP)