India BIT Sunset Clause Tracker: Which Treaties Still Protect

India has terminated most of its bilateral investment treaties (BITs), but the India BIT sunset clause in each one keeps protecting investments made before termination for 10, 15 or 20 years, and on Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) dates the first thirteen sunsets end between 22 Mar and 5 Apr 2027. If the six-month negotiation period runs from the investor’s request for settlement, a request made after 22 Sep–5 Oct 2026 cannot complete it before those sunsets end, except under Austria’s three-month clause (request by about 23 Dec 2026). An investor with a live dispute under one of these treaties has to decide now whether, and how, to file before the sunset ends. These dates concern new claims: a sunset date does not by itself affect an arbitration validly commenced while the treaty was operative.

On DEA dates, the sunsets for Kazakhstan, Mauritius, the Slovak Republic and Uzbekistan (1999) end on 22 Mar 2027; Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Malaysia, Morocco and Qatar on 23 Mar 2027; Egypt on 29 Mar 2027; Bulgaria on 30 Mar 2027; and Mongolia on 5 Apr 2027. For Greece and Uzbekistan (1999) another reading of the treaty gives a later date (see point 4 under “Points of interpretation”).

This page sets out, treaty by treaty, the dates as recorded by DEA on 26 October 2026 (page last updated), and the survival and dispute-settlement clauses as they read in each treaty text. What the treaties protect, and how a claim against India works, is covered in our India bilateral investment treaty guide. Tax-treaty rates and anti-abuse clauses for 26 of India’s treaty partners are in the India DTAA rates comparison, beside their investment-treaty end dates.

The count: what the DEA table records

The DEA table has 92 rows. These are database records, not 92 treaties capable of protecting investors: they include terminated treaties, treaties that never entered into force, replaced agreements and the 2022 Mauritius statement. On our count:

The 17 rows without a termination date include four that give no live investor protection: the 2022 Joint Interpretative Statement on the Mauritius BIT (not a separate treaty), the 2013 India–UAE BIT (it ceased under the 2024 BIT), the 1996 India–Israel BIT (replaced by the 2025 agreement) and the US DFC Investment Incentive Agreement (government-to-government only). Each is explained below.

Counts published elsewhere differ by source and method, for example whether treaties that never entered into force, or treaties replaced by a new agreement, are counted as terminated. A figure of about 77, based on the UNCTAD database, also appears on this site. The figures on this page are our count from the DEA table. For any one investment, the date that matters is the one in that treaty’s own row.

DEA and UNCTAD also give different dates for some treaties. The cases we have identified are Mauritius, Egypt and the 1996 Israel BIT (for which DEA records no termination date). This tracker uses DEA dates for planning. We have not reconciled every row against UNCTAD, so check both sources for the treaty concerned before relying on a date.

How to read the India BIT sunset clause tracker

What the survival clause does. A typical clause reads: “Notwithstanding termination of this Agreement, the Agreement shall continue to be effective for a further period of 10 years from the date of its termination in respect of investments made or acquired before the date of termination” (Art 14(4), India–Kazakhstan BIT 1996). The surviving provisions include the investor–State dispute article. Some tails cover only listed articles (Arts 1–12 for Austria and Korea; Arts 1–13 for Argentina; Arts 1–14 for Denmark and Finland; Arts 1–15 for Saudi Arabia). In each of those, the dispute article falls within the covered range.

What runs from what. Most clauses run the tail “from the date of termination”. Some run it from the date the notice of termination “becomes effective” (Mauritius, Denmark, Finland, Taiwan 2002). North Macedonia runs it “from the date of denunciation” (Art 15(2)), which may mean the date the notice was given rather than the date it took effect a year later. France (Art 13) and Uzbekistan 1999 (Art 15(4)) state no start date. We have used the DEA termination date as the date termination took effect in every case, and added the survival period to the same calendar day. The texts do not say whether the anniversary itself is the last protected day, so treat the day before as the safe last day.

The negotiation step. Most treaties let the investor go to arbitration only after a dispute has not been settled within six months. A few use three months (Austria, the Netherlands, Finland, Taiwan 2002). The “illustrative latest settlement-request date” column is the sunset end date less that period. It shows the latest date on which a request could be made and still run the full period before the sunset ends. It is a planning assumption, not a legal deadline: it assumes arbitration must start before expiry and the full negotiation period must run first. Where the clock starts differs:

• “from the date of request for settlement” (Mauritius Art 8(2)) or “from the date either party requested amicable settlement” (Greece Art 10(2));
• “from written notification of a claim” (UK Art 9(2); Korea Art 8(2));
• “from the date of notice given thereunder” (Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, Art 9(2));
• no start stated: “within a period of six months” (for example Kazakhstan Art 9(2), Cyprus Art 9(2)).

Where no start is stated, our date assumes the period runs from the request.

“If both Parties agree.” In 35 BITs of India’s older model (the 31 marked in Tables 1–2, the 1996 Israel BIT, and the Bangladesh, Libya and Senegal BITs still in force), the six-month clause says the dispute “may, if both Parties agree,” be submitted to local courts or to conciliation. Arbitration is open where “the Parties fail to agree” on that procedure (for example Arts 9(2)–(3), India–Kazakhstan BIT). The six months are the only period stated. Whether a respondent State can delay arbitration by withholding agreement is a question of interpretation. Jordan and Switzerland add three months for the parties to agree a procedure (Art 9(3) of each). These treaties are marked [b] in the tables.

Longer periods. Two treaties let the investment’s own terms extend the tail: Mauritius (“or for any longer period as provided for or agreed upon in the relevant contract or approval”, Art 13(3)) and Senegal (“or for a longer period agreed between the investor and the Contracting Party”, Art 16(2)). For these, check the investment’s own contract or approval. The Slovak Republic clause is different. Its ten years apply “unless the Contracting Parties decide otherwise” (Art 14(4)). That is a power of the two States, not of the investor, and on the wording a decision could shorten the period as well as lengthen it.

“Investments made before termination.” Most clauses cover investments “made or acquired before the date of termination”. Mauritius covers investments “approved and /or made prior to” it (Art 13(3)). France, Germany and the UK cover investments made “while” or “whilst” the agreement was in force (France Art 13; Germany Art 15; UK Art 15). A shareholding acquired after termination, for example by a new holding company in a restructuring, is on the wording not an investment “made or acquired before” termination. Whether capital added after termination to an existing investment is covered is a question of interpretation.

Why the dates are approximate. Each end date depends on three things: the DEA date being the date termination took effect, calendar arithmetic, and the start rule above. For a few treaties the duration clause itself can be read more than one way (points 4 to 6 under “Points of interpretation”). Where the DEA dates conflict with the treaty text, the tables say so (footnote [a]).

Table 1: sunsets ending in 2027 and 2028

All dates are as recorded by DEA on 26 October 2026 (page last updated). “Passed” means the date was before 29 Oct 2026. The illustrative request dates assume the negotiation period runs from the request; as with the sunset end, treat the day before as the safe date.

[a] DEA dates that differ from the treaty text. For Australia and Thailand the tables show the signature date in the treaty text, because DEA’s signature date is later than its own in-force date: Australia, text signed “26th the day of February 1999” (DEA signed 26 Feb 2009, in force 4 May 2000); Thailand, text signed “tenth day of July, 2000” (DEA signed 10 Jul 2002, in force 13 Jul 2001). Otherwise we state DEA dates as DEA records them; the text says otherwise for: Slovak Republic, signed “25th day of September 2006”; North Macedonia, DEA in force 7 Oct 2007, before the signature in Skopje on 17 Mar 2008; Sudan, DEA in force 18 Oct 2003, before the signature in Khartoum on 22 Oct 2003; Germany, text signed “10th day of July, 1995” (DEA 10 Dec 1995); Latvia, text 18 Feb 2010 (DEA 8 Feb 2010); Yemen, text 30 Oct 2002 (DEA gives Yemen the same signature and in-force dates as Taiwan 2002); Bosnia and Herzegovina, text 12 Sep 2006 (DEA 11 Sep 2006); Switzerland, text 4 Apr 1997 (DEA 5 Apr 1997); Tajikistan, text 12 Dec 1995 (DEA 13 Dec 1995). Termination and entry-into-force dates cannot be checked against the texts, which do not record them.

[b] “If both Parties agree” first step (see above).

Worked example (illustrative). An Austrian company has held shares in an Indian company since 2012. In September 2026 a state government cancels the Indian company’s licence. The Austrian company sends a written request for amicable settlement on 1 Dec 2026. The three months in Art 9(2) of the Austria BIT run to about 1 Mar 2027. If the dispute is not settled and neither local proceedings nor conciliation are taken up, Art 9(3) lets the investor refer it to arbitration, and it can do so before the sunset ends on about 23 Mar 2027. Under every other treaty in the 2027 group, on DEA dates and counting from the request, a request sent today completes its six months only after the sunset has ended.

Table 2: all other terminated BITs, by sunset end date

Table 3: treaties that never entered into force (no protection)

DEA records a signature date and a termination date of 22 Mar 2017 for each of these, but no entry-into-force date. On that record they never applied, and there is no sunset period to run.

Table 4: live investment protection

Bilateral investment treaties in force (DEA shows no termination date)

Investment chapters in trade agreements

Who can claim under these chapters differs. A Singapore enterprise must not be one “with negligible or nil business operations or with no real and continuous business activities” in Singapore (Art 6.1(6), CECA), and India may deny benefits where the enterprise has no substantial business operations “or” Indian investors own or control it (Art 6.9). Under the Korea CEPA, India can deny benefits only where both limbs apply: no substantial business activities “and” ownership by a non-Party or Indian investor (Art 10.17). Under the ASEAN agreement the limbs are joined by “or”, so third-country ownership alone may be enough (Art 13(2)). Nissan Motor Co. used the Japan CEPA against India; the tribunal’s Decision on Jurisdiction is dated 29 Apr 2019 (PCA Case No. 2017-37).

Instruments that are not investor protection

• India–UAE CEPA, Ch 12: “nothing in this Chapter shall be subject to any dispute settlement mechanism” (Art 12.6). UAE investors rely on the 2024 BIT.
• India–Mauritius CECPA (2021): no investment chapter, and direct tax is excluded (Art 1.3(1)(b)). See our Mauritius BIT note.
• India–US DFC Investment Incentive Agreement (signed 23 May 2022; in force 15 Jun 2022, DEA): covers investment support by the US Development Finance Corporation. Disputes are between the two governments (Art 4), and the agreement continues for outstanding support for up to 12 years after termination (Art 6(c)).
• India–Malaysia CECA (in force 1 Jul 2011 according to the Department of Commerce): not reviewed for this page.

The DEA table lists no BIT with the United States; the DFC agreement is the only US instrument in it. The India bilateral investment treaty guide covers the protection routes for investors from countries with no treaty in force. Every BIT with an EU member state in the DEA table other than Lithuania’s appears in Tables 1–3. For investors from those states, the position under the EU–India trade agreement is covered on the EU–India trade deal page.

Points of interpretation

These points are unsettled. We found no ruling on them under India’s treaties.

1. Filing after the sunset ends. Each clause keeps “the provisions” in force for the stated period. None says whether a dispute notified within the period can be submitted to arbitration after it ends. This is a question of interpretation.
2. Filing before the negotiation period has run. The treaties do not say whether the waiting period is a condition of India’s consent to arbitration or a procedural step. Filing early carries the risk of a prematurity objection.
3. The consent-gated first step. See “If both Parties agree” above. The text gives no answer if the respondent State neither agrees nor refuses.
4. Greece, Lao PDR and Uzbekistan (1999): termination inside a fixed term. The Greece BIT runs “for a period of ten years” from entry into force, and either Party may terminate “upon notice of at least one year before the date of expiry of its current period of validity” (Arts 15(1)–(2)). On DEA dates the first term ran to 12 Apr 2018, but DEA records termination on 23 Mar 2017. The Lao PDR BIT runs “for a period of fifteen years” (Art 16(1)), to 5 Jan 2018 on DEA dates; DEA records termination on 22 Mar 2017. The Uzbekistan 1999 BIT ran for ten years and was then “tacitly extended for the further period of five years at a time” unless either Party gave notice (Art 15(3)). On DEA dates the block running when DEA records termination (22 Mar 2017) was 28 Jul 2015 to 28 Jul 2020. As in the Lao PDR text (Art 16(1)), and unlike the Greece text, Art 15(3) also says the Agreement “shall stand terminated twelve months from the date of receipt” of the notice, which points towards the DEA date. If termination took effect only at the end of the fixed term or block, the sunsets would end about 12 Apr 2028 (Greece), 5 Jan 2033 (Lao PDR) and 28 Jul 2030 (Uzbekistan 1999). Neither the DEA table nor the texts show whether the two States agreed to end the treaty early. We have used the DEA dates in the tables. A claimant should plan on the earlier date.
5. North Macedonia: “from the date of denunciation”. The tail covers investments “made prior to the date when the notice of denunciation of this Agreement become effective”, but runs “for a period of ten years from the date of denunciation” (Art 15(2)). Notice becomes effective “one year after it has been received” (Art 15(1)). If “the date of denunciation” is the date it took effect, which we take DEA’s 31 Jul 2019 to be, the sunset ends 31 Jul 2029. If it is the date notice was given, the sunset ends about a year earlier, around 31 Jul 2028, and the last request date moves to about 31 Jan 2028. A claimant should plan on the earlier date. Separately, Art 15(1) renews the treaty “for a similar period or periods” of ten years, so the fixed-term question in point 4 can also arise; DEA’s in-force date for this treaty (7 Oct 2007) is before the signature date in the text, so we have not computed an alternative from it.
6. Kyrgyz Republic: two readings. DEA records the 1997 BIT as terminated on 22 Mar 2017, which gives a sunset to about 22 Mar 2032. The 2019 agreement, signed after that date, says it “replaces” the 1997 Agreement, “which shall be terminated on the date of entry into force of this Agreement” (Art 38.4), that is 5 Jun 2025 per DEA. On that reading, investments made before 5 Jun 2025 would be protected by the 1997 tail to about 5 Jun 2040. The 2019 agreement does not say what happens to claims under the 1997 BIT. A claimant should plan on the earlier date.
7. Israel: the 1996 BIT replaced from 4 Jul 2026. The 2025 agreement “shall replace the India–Israel BIT 1996, in respect of investments made or acquired prior to the date of termination of India–Israel BIT 1996 which would have been otherwise protected as per Article 15(2)” of the 1996 BIT. From its entry into force “the India–Israel BIT 1996 shall cease to be effective” for those investments (Art 3, third paragraph, 2025 agreement). The 1996 BIT’s own tail was 15 years (Art 15(2)). Investments it covered now come under the 2025 agreement, with its local-remedies conditions (Art 16) and its 10-year survival (Art 38). The DEA table gives no termination date for the 1996 BIT, so the cut-off date in that clause is not stated anywhere we found. The 2025 agreement also “shall not apply to claims arising out of an alleged breach or events which occurred” before its entry into force (Art 3, second paragraph), but the replacement clause opens with “Notwithstanding anything in Article 3.2 to the contrary”. Whether a breach before 4 Jul 2026 can be claimed under the 2025 agreement is a question of interpretation.
8. UAE: the 2013 BIT has ceased, and on our reading its claim window has closed. The 2024 BIT provides that the 2013 BIT (which it calls the “India UAE BIT 2014”) “shall cease to have effect upon the date of entry into force of this Treaty or shall lapse on 12 September 2024, whichever date is earlier”, and that claims under it that arose by then “shall be brought no later than Five (5) months from the Date of Cessation” (Art 39.4, 2024 BIT). The 2024 BIT entered into force on 31 Aug 2024 (DEA), so on our reading the last day was 31 Jan 2025. The 2013 text has no survival clause (Art 18). The DEA table still shows no termination date for it. See RAKIA v India and the India–UAE BIT.
9. New treaties: lapse, and termination at any time. The ten-year term in the new treaties is not a guaranteed minimum. All seven (Israel 2025, UAE 2024, Uzbekistan 2024, Kyrgyz 2019, Belarus 2018, Taiwan 2018 and Brazil 2020) can be terminated by either Party at any time after entry into force, on one year’s or 12 months’ notice (Table 4). The 2024 UAE, 2024 Uzbekistan, 2019 Kyrgyz, 2018 Taiwan and 2020 Brazil treaties also lapse after ten years unless renewed in writing. The Belarus 2018 treaty “shall remain in force for a period of ten (10) years” and says nothing about what follows (Art 38.2); on DEA dates the ten years end on 5 Mar 2030. The UAE and Israel clauses apply survival on “termination or the expiry”. The Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz, Belarus, Taiwan and Brazil clauses refer only to termination. Whether their survival periods apply when a treaty lapses or reaches the end of its term, rather than being terminated, is a question of interpretation. On DEA dates the first of these, Taiwan 2018, reaches ten years on 14 Feb 2029.
10. France: arbitration “at any time”. Art 9(2) of the France BIT has six months for conciliation, but Art 9(3) says “Notwithstanding paragraph 2. the dispute may be referred to arbitration at any time”. On the text there is no waiting period before arbitration. The start of the 15-year tail is not stated (Art 13).

Common questions

Which India BITs expire in 2027? On DEA dates: Kazakhstan, Mauritius, the Slovak Republic and Uzbekistan (1999) on about 22 Mar 2027; Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Malaysia, Morocco and Qatar on about 23 Mar 2027; Egypt on about 29 Mar 2027; Bulgaria on about 30 Mar 2027; and Mongolia on about 5 Apr 2027. Each has a 10-year survival clause. For Greece and Uzbekistan (1999), another reading of the duration clause gives a later end (about 12 Apr 2028 and 28 Jul 2030); the earlier date is the safe one to plan on.

How long does an India BIT sunset clause last? Ten, fifteen or twenty years, depending on the treaty. On the texts we read, 19 terminated BITs have 10 years, Oman and Saudi Arabia have 20, and the other 45 have 15. The new-generation treaties have 5, 8 or 10 years. The Gulf tails, including Qatar’s (about 23 Mar 2027), are set beside those states’ tax treaties in India’s Gulf tax treaties.

Can a claim still be brought under a terminated India BIT? Yes, for investments made before termination, until the sunset ends, subject to the treaty’s own conditions. Under the 2027 treaties, on DEA dates and if the period runs from the request, a request for settlement sent now cannot complete six months before the sunset ends, except under Austria’s three-month clause. Whether a claim can be filed early, or after the sunset ends, is a question of interpretation.

Which countries have an investment treaty in force with India? On the DEA table: Israel (2025), the UAE (2024), Uzbekistan (2024), the Kyrgyz Republic (2019), Belarus (2018), Taiwan (2018), Brazil (2020, without investor–State arbitration), Lithuania, Colombia, Bangladesh, Senegal, Libya and the Philippines. Investment chapters with arbitration are also in force in the Singapore CECA and the Japan and Korea CEPAs. The ASEAN–India Investment Agreement is in force, but we have not verified which ASEAN States it applies to.

Does a new investment made today get protection under a terminated BIT? No. The survival clauses cover only investments made or acquired before termination (or, for Mauritius, approved and/or made before it).

Does the India–Singapore CECA have a sunset clause? It has a 15-year survival clause (Art 6.24), but it only starts if the CECA is terminated. The CECA is in force, so its investment chapter currently has no end date.

Sources

1. Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, “Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPA)” table of BITs (signature, entry-into-force and termination dates), page updated 26 Oct 2026, viewed 29 Oct 2026. dea.gov.in (paginated; for example ?page=6 for Mauritius)
2. India–Kazakhstan BIT, signed 9 Dec 1996, Arts 9, 14. DEA. dea.gov.in
3. India–Mauritius BIT, signed 4 Sep 1998, Arts 8, 13. DEA. dea.gov.in
4. India–Slovak Republic BIT, signed 25 Sep 2006 (text), Arts 8, 14. DEA. dea.gov.in
5. India–Uzbekistan BIT, signed 18 May 1999, Arts 11, 15. DEA. dea.gov.in
6. India–Austria BIT, signed 8 Nov 1999, Arts 9, 13. DEA. dea.gov.in
7. India–Cyprus BIT, signed 9 Apr 2002, Arts 9, 16. DEA. dea.gov.in
8. India–Greece BIT, signed 26 Apr 2007, Arts 10, 15. DEA. dea.gov.in
9. India–Malaysia BIT, signed 3 Aug 1995, Arts 7, 14. DEA. dea.gov.in
10. India–Morocco BIT, signed 13 Feb 1999, Arts 8, 15. DEA. dea.gov.in
11. India–Qatar BIT, signed 7 Apr 1999, Arts 8, 14. DEA. dea.gov.in
12. India–Bulgaria BIT, signed 26 Oct 1998, Arts 9, 15. DEA. dea.gov.in
13. India–Mongolia BIT, signed 3 Jan 2001 (DEA), Arts 9, 16. DEA. dea.gov.in
14. India–Egypt BIT, signed 9 Apr 1997, Arts 8, 15. Text: World Trade Institute (EDIT) copy, edit.wti.org; dates: DEA, dea.gov.in
15. Agreement between the India–Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, signed 17 Oct 2002, Arts 8, 14, and India’s unilateral Declaration, Art 12. DEA. dea.gov.in
16. India–United Kingdom BIT, signed 14 Mar 1994, Arts 9, 15 (Art 15 heading number illegible in our copy). DEA. dea.gov.in
17. India–Netherlands BIT, signed 6 Nov 1995, Arts 9, 16. DEA. dea.gov.in
18. India–Germany BIT, signed 10 Jul 1995 (text), Arts 9, 15. DEA. dea.gov.in
19. India–France BIT, signed 2 Sep 1997, Arts 9, 13. DEA. dea.gov.in
20. India–Korea BIT, signed 26 Feb 1996, Arts 8, 14. DEA. dea.gov.in
21. India–Oman BIT, signed 2 Apr 1997, Arts 9, 15; India–Saudi Arabia BIT, signed 25 Jan 2006, Arts 12, 16. DEA. dea.gov.in
22. India–Kyrgyz Republic BIT, signed 16 May 1997, Arts 9, 14; and India–Kyrgyz Republic BIT, signed 14 Jun 2019, Arts 2.4, 15, 38. DEA. dea.gov.in
23. India–Israel BIT, signed 29 Jan 1996, Art 15; and India–Israel Bilateral Investment Agreement, signed 8 Sep 2025, Arts 3, 16, 38. DEA. dea.gov.in
24. India–UAE BIT, signed 12 Dec 2013, Arts 10, 18; and India–UAE BIT, signed 13 Feb 2024, Arts 2.4, 17, 39. DEA. dea.gov.in
25. India–Uzbekistan BIT, signed 27 Sep 2024, Arts 2.4, 17, 40; India–Belarus BIT, signed 24 Sep 2018, Arts 2.4, 15, 38; India–Taiwan (ITA–TECC) Bilateral Investment Agreement, signed 18 Dec 2018, Arts 2, 15, 38; India–Brazil Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Treaty, signed 25 Jan 2020, Arts 3.6, 19, 28. DEA. dea.gov.in
26. BITs with Lithuania, Bangladesh, Senegal, Libya and the Philippines (Arts 4, 9 and duration articles). DEA. dea.gov.in. The other terminated BITs in Table 2 not listed separately above (dispute, survival and duration articles as cited in the table). DEA. dea.gov.in
27. India–US DFC Investment Incentive Agreement, signed 23 May 2022, Arts 4, 6. DEA. dea.gov.in
28. India–Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, signed 29 Jun 2005, Ch 6 (Arts 6.1, 6.3, 6.9, 6.21, 6.24) and Ch 16 (Art 16.8). Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in (index page; chapter URL not confirmed)
29. India–Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, signed 16 Feb 2011, Arts 10, 87, 96, 101, 147. Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in (index page)
30. India–Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, Arts 10.2, 10.17, 10.21, 10.22, 15.8. Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in (index page)
31. Agreement on Investment under the ASEAN–India Framework Agreement, signed at Nay Pyi Taw on 12 Nov 2014, Arts 1, 13, 20, 27, 30. Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in
32. Department of Commerce, “ASEAN” page (entry into force of the India–ASEAN Agreement on Investment on 1 Jul 2015, the India–Singapore CECA on 1 Aug 2005 and the India–Malaysia CECA on 1 Jul 2011), viewed 29 Oct 2026. commerce.gov.in
33. India–UAE CEPA, Chapter 12, Art 12.6. Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in
34. India–Mauritius Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement (2021), Art 1.3(1)(b). Department of Commerce. commerce.gov.in
35. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd v Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2017-37, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 Apr 2019. italaw.com

Related reading

• India–Mauritius BIT: treaty protection ends March 2027 – the first sunset, the six-month step and the 2022 statement in detail.
• RAKIA v India: minority shareholders and the India–UAE BIT – how the 2013 and 2024 UAE treaties hand over.
• India bilateral investment treaty protection – what India’s treaties protect and how a claim works.
• Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India – what happens after an award.
• India’s investment-treaty protection has been reset – the policy shift behind the terminations.
• EU–India trade deal – the EU–India agreement and the terminated member-state BITs.

This article is general information and not legal advice. The legal framework and its application change over time; please take advice on your specific circumstances.