In Union of India v Khaitan Holdings, a Delhi High Court refused to stay international arbitration proceedings initiated against the Republic of India in connection with a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with Mauritius. The court decided that the question of jurisdiction must be decided by the arbitration tribunal itself.
This decision points to how a well-informed judiciary can uplift and maintain the impetus of investment-arbitration procedures. National courts continue to play an important role in investment arbitration but their perception as the “’weak link’ in the chain of arbitral practice and procedure” negatively impacts the general development and advancement of international arbitration specifically in Africa. Interim measures require urgent actions from the court and the decision in this case is in consonance with international standards.