The Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority claims $273M from India under the India-UAE investment treaty over a failed alumina project in Andhra Pradesh. An UNCITRAL tribunal declined jurisdiction in 2022, but the English Commercial Court set that award aside in June 2025. The Court of Appeal heard India’s appeal in May 2026, and judgment is awaited.
Latest development May 14, 2026
On May 14, 2026, the Court of Appeal finished hearing India’s appeal against the ruling that the tribunal has jurisdiction over RAKIA’s $273M claim. The hearing ran on May 11, 12, and 14, 2026. Judgment has not yet been handed down.
Why it matters
The appeal will decide when an investment treaty covers state action aimed at a project rather than at the foreign shareholder itself. If the High Court ruling stands, RAKIA’s $273M claim returns to the tribunal for a hearing on the merits.
Background
In 2007, an agreement with the government of Andhra Pradesh provided for the creation of ANRAK Aluminium Ltd (ANRAK) to build an alumina refinery and aluminum smelter in Andhra Pradesh. In 2008, the state mining company, Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC), agreed to supply ANRAK with bauxite. The refinery was built but the smelter was not. After opposition over environmental, tribal land, and political issues, the state government withdrew its approval in an order (GOM 44) of April 6, 2016. APMDC canceled the supply agreement on November 21, 2016.
On December 8, 2016, the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) started an arbitration under the 2013 India-UAE bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and the UNCITRAL Rules. It claimed $273M in damages. India argued that the state’s actions were not a measure applied directly to RAKIA’s investment, which India says was only a shareholding of about 12% in ANRAK. In a final award of May 11, 2022, the tribunal of Lord Hoffmann (chair), Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, and William Rowley KC agreed and held that it had no jurisdiction.
RAKIA challenged the award in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. On June 20, 2025, Robin Knowles J held that the tribunal did have jurisdiction. He found that RAKIA’s investment included $42.5M in cash and a pledge of its ANRAK shares, not only the shares. He also found that GOM 44 was binding executive action aimed at the investment itself. He expressed no view on the merits, which would return to the tribunal, and he made a consequential order on September 29, 2025.
On October 20, 2025, India filed its appellant’s notice in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales against the June 2025 judgment and the related September 2025 order. It argues that the judge erred in four respects, including on what counts as an investment and on the meaning of “applied directly.” On November 7, 2025, RAKIA filed a respondent’s notice setting out additional grounds for upholding the jurisdictional ruling. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on May 11, 12, and 14, 2026, and judgment has not yet been handed down. Jones Day acted for RAKIA and Dentons for India in the High Court.
Timeline 11 events
-
HearingCourt of Appeal finishes hearing India’s appeal
The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on May 11, 12, and 14, 2026. Judgment has not yet been handed down.
-
HearingCourt of Appeal begins hearing India’s jurisdictional appeal
The Court of Appeal, before Lord Justice Males, Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Miles, opened a three-day hearing of India’s appeal against the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction ruling.
Republic of India (Appellant/Defendant) v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (Respondent/Claimant)
-
FilingRAKIA files respondent’s notice in the appeal
RAKIA cross-notified additional grounds on which it argues the Court of Appeal should uphold the High Court’s jurisdictional ruling even if it rejects the judge’s reasoning.
Appellant's Supplemental Skeleton Argument, Case No. CA-2025-002567
-
AppealIndia files its appeal to the Court of Appeal
India filed its appellant’s notice against the June 2025 decision and the related order of September 29, 2025.
-
OrderCommercial Court issues consequential order after setting aside award
Robin Knowles J made a consequential order following his June 20, 2025, judgment accepting RAKIA’s section 67 jurisdictional challenge, which India later appealed.
-
JudgmentCommercial Court holds the tribunal has jurisdiction
Robin Knowles J allowed RAKIA’s section 67 challenge and set aside the tribunal’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction. He expressed no view on the merits.
-
AwardTribunal chaired by Lord Hoffmann declines jurisdiction
The tribunal held that the state’s actions were not a measure applied directly to RAKIA’s investment, so the treaty’s offer to arbitrate did not cover the claim.
-
FilingRAKIA starts treaty arbitration against India
RAKIA issued a notice of arbitration under the 2013 India-UAE bilateral investment treaty and the UNCITRAL Rules, later claiming $273M in damages.
-
OtherAndhra Pradesh withdraws approval for the ANRAK bauxite supply
The state government issued GOM 44, canceling the orders that had authorized APMDC to supply bauxite to ANRAK. APMDC canceled the supply agreement on November 21, 2016.
-
OtherANRAK signs bauxite supply agreement with state miner
ANRAK Aluminium Ltd entered into an agreement with a state-owned mining company, Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, to secure bauxite supply for the project.
Republic of India (Appellant/Defendant) v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (Respondent/Claimant)
-
OtherRAKIA signs agreement creating ANRAK Aluminium joint venture
RAKIA and the government of Andhra Pradesh agreed to form ANRAK Aluminium Ltd to develop a bauxite mining and alumina production project.
Republic of India (Appellant/Defendant) v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (Respondent/Claimant)
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the Court of Appeal of England and Wales dismiss India’s appeal and uphold the ruling that the UNCITRAL tribunal has jurisdiction over RAKIA’s $273 million claim, by April 30, 2027?
- Court of Appeal dismisses India’s appeal47%
- Court of Appeal allows India’s appeal31%
- Still pending on April 30, 202715%
- Appeal partly allowed or remitted5%
- RAKIA and India settle before judgment2%
- Resolves by
- Apr 30, 2027in 6 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Court of Appeal will most likely dismiss India’s appeal and leave RAKIA’s $273 million claim with the tribunal (47%), with judgment expected by April 30, 2027. Appellants usually lose in the Court of Appeal, and RAKIA has backup grounds in its respondent’s notice. India’s chance of restoring the no-jurisdiction award is a substantial 31%.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Court of Appeal’s handed-down judgment in CA-2025-002567, as shown in the published judgment or reliable reports. “Appeal dismissed” if the court upholds the finding that the tribunal has jurisdiction over the claim, on the judge’s reasoning or on RAKIA’s respondent’s notice grounds. “Appeal allowed” if the court restores the tribunal’s finding of no jurisdiction in full. “Partly allowed” if jurisdiction survives for only part of the claim, or the court remits the jurisdiction question for redetermination. “Settlement” if the parties publicly settle or withdraw the appeal or claim before judgment. “Still pending” if no judgment, settlement, or withdrawal has occurred by April 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Reserved Court of Appeal judgments in English civil appeals, especially appeals from section 67 arbitration jurisdiction rulings involving states: Roughly 30% to 40% of English Court of Appeal civil appeals heard on the merits are allowed. Most reserved judgments issue within three to nine months of the hearing.
The base rate favors respondents in the Court of Appeal, where about 30% to 40% of civil appeals heard on the merits succeed. Two factors narrow RAKIA’s edge. The issue is treaty construction, which the Court of Appeal decides afresh. Also, an experienced tribunal and the Commercial Court reached opposite conclusions on what “applied directly” means. RAKIA’s respondent’s notice gives the court an alternative route to uphold jurisdiction, which modestly improves RAKIA’s position. Judgment has been reserved for 5.2 months after a three-day hearing. A handed-down judgment within the next six months is likely, but a complex reserved judgment could slip, so 15% is left on pending. Settlement is unlikely because India generally contests treaty claims and the merits have not been heard. The leading alternative is that the court allows India’s appeal and reinstates the 2022 award. A further appeal to the Supreme Court is possible either way but falls outside this question.
Appellants lose most English Court of Appeal civil appeals · Tribunal and Commercial Court split on “applied directly” test · RAKIA’s respondent’s notice offers alternative grounds to uphold · Judgment reserved 5.2 months after a three-day hearing · India’s general resistance to settling treaty claims
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 18, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made