CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v The Republic of India -[2026] EWHC 414 (Comm)- (25 February 2026)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Fourth to Sixth Claimants sought clarification under CPR 3.1(2)(p) as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 4(4) of the Teare Order, specifically whether the scope of permission to rely on Dutch law expert evidence on the prospects of the Dutch Court recognising or giving effect to the Supreme Court of India Judgment (ISCJ) in Revocation 2 proceedings necessarily includes the Dutch law assessment of procedural fairness of the ISCJ. The court determined that the plain language of paragraph 4 gives permission to parties to rely on Dutch legal expert evidence regarding all aspects of ISCJ recognition relevant to Revocation 2 proceedings, including procedural fairness as part of the Gazprombank criteria.
• The Applicants sought a declaration that they are entitled to pursue the issue of procedural fairness of the ISCJ in these proceedings for the purpose of state immunity. The court considered whether any useful purpose would be served by granting the declaration, given that the question of procedural fairness is directly relevant to India's prospects of success in the Revocation 2 Application and the merits of the stay application.
• The Applicants alternatively sought a variation of the Teare Order pursuant to CPR 3.1(7) or permission under CPR 35.4 to expand the scope of Dutch law expert evidence to include the issue of procedural fairness of the ISCJ. The court considered whether there had been a material change of circumstances or misstatement of facts warranting variation, and whether expert evidence on Dutch law regarding procedural fairness was reasonably required to determine issues in the proceedings.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The case examines the Dutch law criteria for recognition of foreign judgments, specifically the Gazprombank criteria established by the Dutch Supreme Court. The court applied the four-factor test: (i) jurisdiction based on generally acceptable international standards, (ii) judicial proceedings meeting fair due process requirements, (iii) no violation of Dutch public policy, and (iv) no incompatibility with earlier Dutch or foreign court decisions between same parties. The court determined that the procedural fairness of the Supreme Court of India judgment was a relevant Dutch law issue under these criteria.
• The case involves multiple arguments about res judicata effect of the Hague Court of Appeal Decision. The Applicants argued that the HCA Decision has res judicata effect on the question of whether India agreed in writing to submit to arbitration under section 9 of the SIA. The Defendants argued that the HCA Decision does not have res judicata effect under Dutch law and that India's Revocation 2 Application could overturn it. The court noted that res judicata of the ISCJ is a matter to be determined in accordance with the law of India as the lex fori under Dutch private international law rules.
• The case concerns India's invocation of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA). The central issue is whether India consented to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the English Court within the meaning of section 2 of the SIA by ratifying the New York Convention, or whether it agreed in writing to submit disputes to arbitration pursuant to the bilateral investment treaty under section 9 of the SIA. The court held that ratification of the New York Convention by India does not, in and of itself, absent a valid arbitration agreement, amount to consent by way of a prior written agreement by the state amounting to a waiver of state immunity for the purpose of Section 2(2) of the SIA.
• The judgment applies established principles for construction of judicial orders, drawing from Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services and Coward v Phaestos. Key principles include: (i) reasons for making an order may not contradict the order itself, (ii) subjective intentions of parties or Judge are inadmissible, (iii) party submissions are inadmissible for construction purposes, and (iv) the sole question is what the order means. The court also considered powers under CPR 3.1(7) to vary orders and CPR 35.4 to permit expert evidence where reasonably required to determine issues in proceedings.
• The Applicants sought to establish issue estoppel based on the Hague Court of Appeal Decision, arguing it precludes India from re-arguing whether it agreed in writing to submit to arbitration under section 9 of the SIA. The Defendants opposed this, contending that the HCA Decision does not have res judicata effect and that India's Revocation 2 Application could overturn it. The court noted that the Applicants conceded the procedural fairness issue was not in dispute in their skeleton argument before the directions hearing, though the court later determined Dutch law expert evidence could address this issue.

Precedent Name

• Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services
• Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Ltd & Ors
• Tibbles v SIG plc
• Rolls Royce v Unite the Union
• Coward v Phaestos

Cited Statute

• Dutch Code of Civil Procedure Article 1068
• State Immunity Act 1978
• Dutch Code of Civil Procedure Article 382
• Dutch Code of Civil Procedure Article 1065
• New York Convention Article III

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 60. In those circumstances, the court declines to grant the declaration as sought.
• 53. Further, CPR 35.4 gives the court general case management power to permit the parties to adduce expert evidence, where such expert evidence is reasonably required to determine issues in the proceedings. In this case, the question of the procedural fairness (or otherwise) of the ISCJ is directly relevant to India's prospects of success in the Revocation 2 Application and the merits of the stay application. Expert evidence on Dutch law is necessary for this court to determine that issue. Allowing both sides the opportunity to adduce such expert evidence for the purpose of the stay application is in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1.
• 47. For the above reasons, I find that on a proper construction of the Teare Order and the Judgment, the scope of permission to rely on Dutch law expert evidence on the prospects of the Dutch Court recognising or otherwise giving effect to the ISCJ in the Revocation 2 proceedings includes the Dutch law assessment of the procedural fairness (or otherwise) of the ISCJ.

Damages / Relief Type