Identifying the applicable law in cross-border disputes on injuries caused by the covid-19 in India: a critical analysis

Abstract

The outbreak of COVID-19 (also known as the novel coronavirus disease) has led to the initiation of several disputes. While some of these relate to the non-performance of contracts, others concern the damages arising from the injuries caused by coming into contact with the virus. Considering the nature of the pandemic, a plethora of disputes arising from tortious liability for the injuries caused are likely to involve a foreign element—when it results in injuries in some form to persons by the violation of quarantine rules by foreigners or the failure to impose a lockdown to curb the outbreak. For instance, in the United States [US], a group of individuals and business owners have reportedly initiated proceedings against the Chinese government for failing to prevent the disease from spreading. Likewise, tourists from several countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom have initiated mass litigation against the Austrian Federal State of Tyrol and tourist businesses such as sports resorts, bars and restaurants for continuing the to operate in the State despite being designated as a high-risk zone. International disputes such as these chiefly involve the identification of the law that will govern the claim to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. Unlike in the case of contractual claims, the determination of the applicable law is more arduous in the case of torts for the reason that the parties rarely, if ever, know each other and do not expect any particular person to injure them by the harmful behaviour. That said, several countries across the globe have made remarkable progress over the years in developing a framework to identify the governing law to adjudicate cross-border disputes on torts. The European Union [EU], the UK, China, Russia, Australia and Canada are some examples. In contrast, India continues to adhere to the century-old mechanism developed under the English common law which has mostly been replaced in the UK itself. In the absence of any black-letter law on the subject, the development of the method to identify the applicable law in matters of tort has depended on the courts. The Indian courts, however, lack experience in handling international disputes on tort. As a result, there is no conclusive and coherent mechanism to identify the governing law in such matters in India. The paper demonstrates how the rules to determine the applicable law in the present form in India will severely debilitate access to justice and increase transactional costs in obtaining legal information. In particular, it highlights the plethora of problems that are likely to arise in adjudicating disputes concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect, the author provides some suggestions that the lawmakers may consider while reformulating the mechanism to identify the applicable law in matters of tort and, in particular, while adjudicating disputes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 A Mills, Party Autonomy in Private International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018) 395, 397 [Mills, Party Autonomy].

2 Ibid, 397; Adrian Briggs, The Conflict of Laws. (4th edn, OUP, 2019) 247 [Briggs, Conflict of Laws].

3 Atul Setalvad, Conflict of Laws (3rd edn. Lexis Nexis 2007) 566; Javier Carrascosa González, ‘Distance Torts: The Mines De Potasse Decision Forty Years On’ (2016–2017) 18 Yearbook Priv Int Law, 19, 20.

4 Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 395; referring to Symeon C Symeonides, ‘Rome II and Torts Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity’ (2008) 56(1) Am J Comp Law 173, 188.

5 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 247.

6 Ibid.

7 See, Pippa Rogerson, Collier’s Conflict of Laws (4th edn. CUP 2016) 335.

8 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 247.

9 Ibid.

10 See, WHO, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020, available at: <https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19–-11-march-2020> accessed 1 June 2020

11 See, Jos Hoevenaars & Xandra Kramer, Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands, 22 April 2020, available at <https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/mass-litigation-in-times-of-corona-and-developments-in-the-netherlands/> accessed 5 June 2020, referring to Jenna Greene, Daily Dicta: Big Law Litigators see COVID-19 as a ‘Recipe for Litigation’, (17 March 2020), available at <law.com/litigationdaily/2020/03/17/daily-dicta-big-law-litigators-see-covid-19-as-a-recipe-for-litigation/>.

12 See, Logan Alters & Ors v The People’s Republic of China & Ors, Case 1:20-cv-21108-UU (13 March 2020), available at <https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/392/85094/Coronavirus-China-class-action.pdf>; Bella Vista LLC & Ors v The People’s Republic of China & Ors, Case 2:20-cv-00574, 23 March 2020, available at: <https://www.egletlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Complaint-Bella-Vista-LLC-et-al-v.-The-Peoples-Republic-of-China-et-al-FILED.pdf>; and Attorney General Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General Schmitt Files Lawsuit Against Chinese Government, (21 April 2020), available at <https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2020/04/21/missouri-attorney-general-schmitt-files-lawsuit-against-chinese-government>. See also, Ralf Michaels & Jakob Olbing, Corona and Private International Law: A Regularly Updated Repository of Writings, Cases and Developments, 16 May 2020, available at <https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/corona/> accessed 5 June 2020.

13 See, Hoevenaars & Kramer (n 11).

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 See, The Hindu, Coronavirus: Nearly 4,300 cases were linked to Tablighi Jamaat event, says Health Ministry, (18 April 2020), available at: <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-nearly-4300-cases-were-linked-to-tablighi-jamaat-event-says-health-ministry/article31376202.ece> accessed 2 June 2020

17 See, Vasundhra Rastogi, India’s Export and Import Trends 2018-19’ India Briefing, (4 July 2019) available at: <https://www.india-briefing.com/news/indias-export-import-trends-2018-19-18958.html/> accessed 2 June 2020

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 See, International Monetary Fund [IMF], World Economic Outlook Database: October 2019, available at: <http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php> accessed 15 June 2020.

21 Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 395, 397; Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 247.

22 Ibid.

23 Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 397.

24 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 247.

25 See, JHC Morris, ‘The Proper Law of Tort’ (1951) Harv Law Rev 881, 888; and JG Collier, The Conflict Of Laws, (3rd edn, CUP 2001) 247.

26 Ibid.

27 SC. Symeonides, Choice of Law (OUP 2016) 177 et seq. [Symeonides, Choice of Law]; Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 248; and Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 410–413.

28 See, Babcock v Jackson, [1963] 2 Ll.R 286; and HL. Korn, ‘The Choice of Law Revolution: A Critique’ (1983) 83 Columbia Law Rev 772, 827.s

29 Symeonides, Choice Of Law (n 27) 177 et seq; and Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 248.

30 See, Recital 40 of the Rome II Regulation.

31 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 244.

32 See, for instance, Ibid, at 244 et seq; and Collier, (n 25) 220 et seq.

33 Phillips v Eyre, [1970] LR 6 QB 1 at 28, 29.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 See, KF Tsang, ‘Double Actionability: An Outdated Rule in Modern Times’ (2017) 86 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, 73, 83–92, for a detailed discussion on the application of the double actionability rule under the English common law.

37 Collier (n 25) 222–223.

38 Ibid.

39 See, The Mary Moxham, (1876) 1 PD 107; Machado v Fontes, [1897] 2 QB 231 CA; McElroy v McAllister, 1949 SC 110; Boys v Chaplin, [1971] AC 356; Collier (n 25) 223.

40 See, Alex Mills, ‘The Application of Multiple Laws under the Rome II Regulation’ in John Ahern & William Binchy (eds), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 140. [Mills, Multiple Laws].

41 See, Szalatnay-Stacho v Fink, [1947] KB 1 CA; Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 397.

42 Boys, (n 39).

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid; Tsang (n 36) 87.

46 Ibid, 391H.

47 Red Sea Insurance Company Limited v Bouygues S.A. and Others; [1995] 1 HKLR 224, 229.

48 Ibid, 237; Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 263; Collier (n 25) 225.

49 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 263.

50 See, Tsang (n 36) 76.

51 Sec. 11(1) of the 1995 Act; Collier (n 25) 228-229.

52 Sec. 11(2) of the 1995 Act.

53 Sec. 12 of the 1995 Act.

54 see, Collier (n 25) 232; and P Stone, ‘Product Liability under the Rome II Regulation’ in John Ahern & William Binchy (eds), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 175.

55 See, Johnson v Coventry Churchill International, [1992] 3 All ER 14; Morin v Bonhams & Brooks, [2003] EWCA Civ 1802; Trafigura Beheer v Kookmin Bank, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 455; Stone (n 56) 174; Mills, Party Autonomy (n 1) 402.

56 See, Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 397, 398.

57 Sec. 14(3)(a) of the 1995 Act; and Collier (n 25) 235.

58 See, Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 275–276.

59 See, Art. 8 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

60 See, Goh Chok Tong v. Tang Liang Hong, I SLR (R) 811 (1997); and Rickshaw Investments Ltd v.

Nicolai Baron von Uexkull, [2007] 1 SLR 377.

61 See, A Briggs, Private International Law in Myanmar (Faculty of Law, University of Oxford 2015) 108 [Briggs, PIL in Myanmar].

62 See, Reid Mortenson et al., ‘Private International Law in Australia’ (3rd edn, Lexis Nexis 2011) 424; Davies et al., Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (9th edn,s LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia 2020) 423–425 [Nygh, Conflict of Laws]; Stephen Pitel et al. ‘Private International Law in Common Law Canada: Cases, Texts and Materials’ (4th edn, Emond Publishing 2016) 651. [Pitel, Private International Law in Common Law Canada].

63 For a discussion on Australian law on the subject, see, Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Thompson, [1971] AC 458; John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson, (2000) 203 CLR 503; Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang, (2002) 210 CLR 491; Pulido v RS Distributions Pty Ltd, (2003) 177 FLR 401; Reid Mortenson et al (n 63) 448; Nygh, Conflict of Laws (n 62) 428. For a discussion on Canadian law on the subject, see Tolofson v Jenson, [1994] 3 SCR 1022; Wong v Lee, [2002] OJ No 885 per Feldman JA; Pitel (n 62) 651, 676–675. For a discussion on New Zealand law on the subject, see, sec 10 of the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Act 2016 [New Zealand PIL Act].

64 See, the decisions of the Australian courts in John Pfeiffer (n 62) Regie National (n 62).

65 See, Wong (n 62); Pitel (n 62) 658–659, 673–675.

66 See, Neilson v Overseas Projects, (2005) 223 CLR 331; [2005] HCA 54; Nygh, Conflict of Laws (n 62) 496–510; Rogerson (n 7) 336.

67 See, Distillers Co, supra note 64; John Pfeiffer, supra note 62; Pulido, supra note 62; Reid Mortenson et al (n 63) 448; Nygh, Conflict of Laws (n 62) 428.

68 See, Magdalena Tulibacka, Product Liability Law in Transition: A Central European Perspective (Ashgate Publishers, 2009), 4.

69 Regie Nationale, supra note 62; Nygh, Conflict of Laws (n 62) 452–453.

70 See, Morgan v Pyle National (Canada) Ltd, [1973] 43 DLR (3d) 239 (SCC); and Halsbury’s Laws of Canada: Conflict of Laws (Lexis Nexis 2016) 556, 563.

71 Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, Ibid, 566–567, referring to Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission, (1974) 22 FLR 181; and Maple v David Syme & Co, [1975] 1 NSWLR 97 (Sup. Ct. NSW) at ff 4.

72 Ibid, at 569.

73 Ibid, at 569–570.

74 See, Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 269–270 for illustrations on unjust enrichment.

75 Halsbury’s Laws of Canada (n 70) 567.

76 See, the decisions of the Australian court in John Pfeiffer, supra note 62, at 541; ACCC v Valve Corporation, [2017] FCAFC 224 (Valve Corporation). For a discussion on Canadian Law, see, S Pitel & N Rafferty, Conflict of Laws (Irwin Law 2010) 271–274 [Pitel, Conflict of Laws].

77 See, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, [2007] OJ L/199/40 [Rome II Regulation]. But see, the provisions of the 1971 Hague Traffic Accidents Convention [1971 Convention]. The 1971 Convention stipulates the rules to identify the governing law in disputes on traffic accidents. 12 EU States, namely, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovak, Slovenia and Spain have ratified the 1971 Convention. The text of the 1971 Hague Convention on Traffic Accidents is available on: <https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=81> accessed 2 June 2020.

78 See, Japanese Act on the General Rules on the Application of Laws, 2007 [Japanese Act].

79 Act of Private International Law 2016 [South Korean PIL].

80 Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 2015 [Civil Code of Russia].

81 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Laws Applicable to Foreign-Related Civil Relations, 2010 [Law on the Laws].

82 See, Art. 1 of the Rome II Regulation. In particular, the Rome II Regulation excludes from its scope, proceedings initiated against a State for acts and omissions in the exercise of its authority (acta jura impirii). Accordingly, the applicable law for claims such as those initiated against China in relation to the coronavirus outbreak will be identified according to the private international law of the adjudicating court. The codifications of Japan, South Korea, Russia and China do not mention any such exclusions.

83 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 257.

84 Bonell defines ‘soft law’ as ‘general instruments of normative nature with no legally binding force and which are applied only through voluntary acceptance’. See, Michael J Bonell, An International Restatement of Contract Law: The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (Transnational Publishers, 2005) 200-208; Michael J Bonell, Soft Law and Party Autonomy: The case of the UNIDROIT Principles (2005) 51 Loy. Law Review, 229, 229. Also see, Henry D. Gabriel, The Advantages of Soft Law in International Commercial Law: The Role of UNIDROIT, UNCITRAL, and the Hague Conference’ (2009) 34 Brook. J. Int'l L 658; Sieg Eiselen, ‘Globalization and Harmonisation of International Trade Law’ in Faure and Van der Walt (eds), Globalization and Private Law: The Way Forward (Edward Elgar 2008) 97, 123–125; Saloni Khanderia, Indian Private International Law vis-à-vis Party Autonomy in the Choice of Law (2018) 18(1) Oxford Univ Commonw Law J 1, 5 referring to the definition of ‘soft law’ in ff 32.

85 UNIDROIT, ‘UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts, 2016’ <www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/principles2016/principles2016-e.pdf>

86 TK Graziano, ‘Freedom to Choose the Applicable Law in Tort – Articles 14 and 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation’ in John Ahern and William Binchy (eds), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 119.

87 Art. 14 of the Rome II Regulation; Graziano, Ibid, 86, 113 et seq.

88 Ibid, Art. 6.

89 Ibid, Art. 8.

90 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 253.

91 Art. 20 of the Japanese Act; K Takahashi, ‘A Major Reform of Japanese Private International Law’ (2006) J Priv Int Law, 311, 332–333.

92 Art. 33 of South Korean PIL.

93 Art. 1219(3) of the Civil Code of Russia.

94 Art. 44(3) of the Law on the Laws.

95 See, G Rühl, ‘The Protection of Weaker Parties in the Private International Law of the European Union: A Portrait of Inconsistency and Truancy’ (2014) J Priv Int Law 335, 335 et seq; and Z Huo, ‘An Imperfect Improvement: The New Conflict of Laws Act of the People’s Republic of China’ (2011) Int Comp Law Q 1065, 1089.

96 Art.14 of the Rome II Regulation; Graziano, (n 86) 119–120.

97 See for instance, Arts. 5–12 of the Rome II Regulation; Arts. 14, 18–19 of the Japanese Act; Arts. 24 and 31 of the South Korean PIL; Arts. 1221–1222 of the Civil Code of Russia; and Arts. 45–47 and 50 of the Law on the Laws.

98 See, Recital 19 of the Rome II Regulation; and J von Hein, ‘Article 4’ in Calliess (ed), Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws (Wolters Kluwer 2015) 511 referring to special rules under the Rome II Regulation. [von Hein, Article 4 Rome II].

99 See, Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 397.

100 See, Art. 23 of the Rome II Regulation, which defines ‘habitual residence’.

101 See, Art. 4(2) of the Rome II; J von Hein, ‘Article 4 and Traffic Accidents’ in John Ahern & William Binchy (eds), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 160–165 [von Hein, Article 4 and Traffic Accidents]; von Hein, Article 4 Rome II, (n 97) 509–517.

102 Art. 4(1) read along with Recitals 6 and 18 of the Rome II; von Hein, Article 4 and Traffic Accidents (n 101) 158–160; von Hein, Article 4 Rome II (n 97) 497–509.

103 See, Art. 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation; Stone (n 54) 196. Also see, R Fentiman, ‘The Significance of Close Connection’ in John Ahern & William Binchy (eds), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations: A New Litigation Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 85 et seq; and C Schmid & T Pinkel, ‘Article 5 Rome II’ in Calliess (ed) Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws (Wolters Kluwer 2015) 562–s566.

104 [1971] AC 356.

105 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 263.

106 Art. 17 of the Japanese Act; Takahashi (n 91) 328–329.

107 Ibid.

108 Art. 20 of the Japanese Act; Takahashi (n 91) 331–332.

109 Art. 22(2) of the Japanese Act; Takahashi (n 91) 333; Symeon C Symeonides, Codifying Choice of Law Around the World: An International Comparative Analysis (OUP 2014) 84. [Symeonides, Codifying Choice of Law].

110 Ibid.

111 Art. 32(2) of the South Korean PIL.

112 Ibid, Art. 32(1).

113 Symeonides, Codifying Choice of Law (n 109) 83; Huo (n 95) 1089.

114 Art. 1219(2) of the Civil Code of Russia; Art. 44(2) of the Law on the Laws.

115 See, Art. 16 of the Rome II Regulation; Art. 7 of the South Korean PIL; Arts. 1192 and 1193 of the Civil Code of Russia; Arts. 4 and 5 of the Law on the Laws.

116 See, Art. 26 of the Rome II Regulation; Art. 1193 of the Civil Code of Russia; Art. 5 of the Law on the Laws.

117 PE Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts (Clarendon 1999) 206-207. [Nygh, Autonomy]

118 See, Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 256.

119 Nygh, Autonomy (n 117) 199.

120 See, Secs. 19 and 20 of the CPC.

121 See Sec 19 of the CPC; and Globe Transport Corpn v Triveni Engineering Works, [1983] 4 SCC 707 [3].

122 ibid.

123 For a detailed discussion on choice of court agreements, Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 91. For a discussion of Indian private international law on choice of court agreements, see, S Khanderia, ‘The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the Enforcement of Forum-Selection Clauses in Indian Private International Law’ 9(3) Int J Priv Law 125 (2018).

124 [1991] 4 SCC 584. For a detailed discussion, see, U. Baxi, Inconvenient Forum and Convenient Catastrophe: The Bhopal Case, Bombay 1986.

125 Ibid.

126 Kotah Transport Ltd v Jhalawar Transport Services Ltd, AIR 1960 Raj 224.

127 Sona Devi v Anil Kumar, [2011] 3 TAC 552.

128 Kotah Transport Ltd (n 126).

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid, at [31–32].

131 (n 33).

132 Ibid, referring to A Dicey, J Morris, and L Collins (eds), Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws (11th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 1987) Rule 180–s181.

133 Sona Devi (n 127).

134 Ibid.

135 Ibid. at [6–8], referring to Halsbury’s Law of England, Vol. 8(3) (2003) [375].

136 Ibid. at [6].

137 Ibid.

138 Ibid.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid.

141 See, Mills, Multiple Laws (n 40) 140.

142 Sona Devi (n 127) [8].

143 [2006] UK HL 32.

144 Babcock (n 28).

145 Sona Devi (n 127) [9–12].

146 Boys (n 39).

147 (n 143).

148 (n 28).

149 Ibid.

150 Sona Devi (n 127) [8].

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid, [12].

153 See, Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 263.

154 See, Boys (n 39).

155 See, Collier (n 25) 235 referring to the English common law in Phillips (n 34).

156 Andrew Dickinson, ‘Further Thoughts on Foreign Torts - Boys v. Chaplin Explained? (Red Sea v. Bouygues)’ (1994) Lloyd’s Maritime and Comparative Law Quarterly 463; Tsang (n 36) 81.

157 See, Kotah Transport Ltd (n 126).

158 See, Sona Devi (n 127).

159 See, Union Carbide (n 121).

160 Ibid.

161 See, the discussion accompanying notes 37–40.

162 Pitel (n 62) 651.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid.

165 Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 274.

166 See, Sona Devi (n 127) [6].

167 See, Mills, Party Autonomy, (n 1) 398 referring to the application of the rule under English law.

168 Tsang (n 36) 88.

169 See Brainerd Currie, ‘The Constitution and the Choice of Law: Governmental Interests and the Judicial Function’ (1958) 26 Univ Chic Law Rev 9, 10 (1958); and Tsang (n 36) 88.

170 See J.H.C. Morris, The Conflict of Laws (3rd edn, Stevens & Sons 1984) 527, 529–530; and Tsang (n 36) 88.

171 Tsang (n 36) 90, referring to the remarks of the Australian court in Breavington v. Godleman, 169 CLR 41, 77 (Austl. 1988); and the Supreme Court of Canada in Tolofson, (n 62) at ff 92.

172 See, Rylands v Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

173 Kusuma Begum (Smt) v The New India Assurance Co, AIR 2001 SC 485, referring to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr. [1987] (3) SCC 234.

174 Tsang (n 36) 82.

175 Ibid.

176 See, Red Sea (n 47).

177 See, Reid Mortenson et al. (n 63) 445

178 Tsang (n 36) 80.

179 John Pfeiffer (n 62) [79]. Also see, Tsang (n 36) 80.

180 See, Constitution of India 1950, Art. 141, provides that ‘[t]he law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India’.

181 See, the text accompanying notes 85–86.

182 See, the text accompanying note 96.

183 See, the text accompanying note 55–56.

184 See, Art. 14 of the Rome II Regulation.

185 See in this respect, Art. 14 of the Rome II Regulation; and Briggs, Conflict of Laws (n 2) 253.

186 See, the Indian Supreme Court’s decisions in National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Company, [1992] 3 SCC 551; Modi Entertainment Network & Anr. v. W.S.G Cricket PTE Ltd. [2003] 4 SCC 341 which confirm the acceptance of party autonomy in international disputes on contractual matters and the implied choice of the parties in the absence of an express indication in the contract; Kumarina Investment Ltd. v Digital Media Convergence Ltd & Anr, 2010 TDSAT 73 [27], which suggests the plausible acceptance of the parties’ of non-State law if its provisions have been incorporated by reference in the terms of the contract. Khanderia, Party Autonomy (n 84) 8 et seq; S Khanderia, ‘Practice does not Make Perfect: Rethinking the Doctrine of ‘The Proper Law of the Contract’ – A Case for the Indian Courts’ 2020) 16(3) Journal of Private International Law 423. [Khanderia, Practice does not Make Perfect].

187 See, Recital 15 of the Rome II Regulation; von Hein, Article 4 Rome II, (n 97) 497.

188 von Hein, Article 4 Rome II (n 98) 502.

189 See, the text accompanying notes 66–77.

190 See, von Hein, Article 4 Rome II (n 98) 497, which explains the dissatisfaction with the lex loci delicti.

191 Ibid, at 497.

192 Ibid, at 497–498.

193 Ibid.

194 See, the text accompanying notes 106–110.

195 Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 [51–57]; Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v National Highways Authority of India, (NHAI), 2019 SCC Online SC 677 [13. 28, 37].

196 See, Renusagar Power Co, Ibid, 213.

197 See, Taprogge Gesellschaft MBH v. IAEC India Ltd, AIR 1988 Bom 157, [7–18]; and Kumarina Investment (n 186) [11, 14, 16 and 17], Khanderia, Party Autonomy (n 84) 12–13

198 Khanderia, Party Autonomy (n 84) 10; Khanderia, Practice does not make Perfect (n 186), referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in National Thermal Power (n 186) [14].

199 See, Khanderia, Party Autonomy (n 84) 8 et seq.; and Khanderia, Practice does not make Perfect (n 186).

200 See, von Hein, Article 4 Rome II (n 98) 497.

201 Ibid, at 497–502.

202 See, text accompanying notes 104–105.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Saloni Khanderia

Saloni Khanderia is an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow (Experienced Researcher) at the Chair for Civil Law, International Private Law and Comparative Law - LMU, München. She is also a full-time Associate Professor at the OP Jindal Global University (Jindal Global Law School) and a Visiting Associate Professor at the University of Johannesburg. The research has been funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn.