London, 26 October 2026: The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has dismissed India's appeal against a ruling allowing Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA), an investment authority based in the United Arab Emirates, to pursue international arbitration claims concerning a failed bauxite supply and aluminium project in Andhra Pradesh.
In Republic of India v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 1358, decided on 22 October 2026, the Court upheld the English High Court's conclusion that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear RAKIA's claims under the India–UAE Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated in a 2007 memorandum of understanding between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Ras Al Khaimah for the establishment of an alumina refinery, aluminium smelter and power plant in Andhra Pradesh. The proposed project was expected to involve investment of approximately US$2 billion.
RAKIA invested approximately US$42.5 million in ANRAK Aluminium Limited, acquiring a shareholding that eventually stood at around 12%. The project depended on bauxite supplies from the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC), a state-owned entity.
Following public opposition and environmental concerns, the Andhra Pradesh government withdrew earlier authorisations connected with the bauxite supply arrangement in 2016. APMDC subsequently terminated the Bauxite Supply Agreement with ANRAK.
RAKIA alleged that the government's actions breached India's obligations under the India–UAE BIT, including protections relating to investment treatment and expropriation. It initiated arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in December 2016.
Procedural History
In May 2022, the arbitral tribunal declined jurisdiction, reasoning that the government's actions directly affected ANRAK and APMDC, while their impact on RAKIA's shareholding was indirect.
RAKIA challenged the jurisdictional decision before the English High Court. In June 2025, the Commercial Court set aside the tribunal's decision and remitted the dispute for further consideration on its merits.
India appealed, arguing that RAKIA's investment was its shareholding in ANRAK rather than the underlying project or the company's assets. India contended that government measures affecting the company's bauxite supply arrangements did not necessarily apply directly to RAKIA's investment within the meaning of the treaty.
What the Court of Appeal Decided
The Court of Appeal dismissed India's appeal. It held that the relevant treaty provision concerning executive action applied directly to an investment could be satisfied where government action affecting a company's operations caused damage to the value of a foreign investor's shareholding.
The Court considered the economic context of RAKIA's investment. Its shareholding was in a company established to develop an alumina and aluminium industry dependent on local bauxite supplies. The cancellation of the supply arrangement affected the company's operations and the value of RAKIA's investment.
The Court clarified that the investment did not need to include ownership of the company's underlying assets for the treaty protection to apply. Nor was it necessary at the jurisdictional stage to establish that the government had permanently ended the entire industry. The relevant question was whether the executive actions applied directly to the investment in the sense required by the treaty.
The Court also considered India's reliance on the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the bilateral investment treaty. It concluded that the material relied upon did not establish the restrictive interpretation advanced by India.
Legal Significance
The decision is significant for international investment arbitration because it addresses the distinction between direct government action affecting an investment and the indirect or consequential effects of measures directed elsewhere.
It demonstrates that a foreign investor's shareholding may receive treaty protection where government action affecting the company's operations directly impacts the investment's value, even if the investor does not own the company's underlying assets.
The judgment may be relevant to future disputes involving bilateral investment treaties, minority shareholdings, state action and the jurisdiction of international arbitral tribunals.
What Happens Next?
The dismissal of India's appeal allows RAKIA's claims to proceed before the arbitral tribunal. However, the Court of Appeal did not determine whether India breached the treaty or whether RAKIA is entitled to damages or compensation. Those substantive questions remain to be decided in the subsequent proceedings.
Source: Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Republic of India v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2026] EWCA Civ 1358, judgment dated 22 October 2026.