Air India is asking the US court to dismiss Kern’s petition, which is in advance

New Delhi: Air India has asked a New York court to dismiss a petition seeking to have Britain’s Cairn Energy seize its assets to enforce $ 1.2 billion in arbitration against the Indian government.
In an airline petition different from the Government of India’s petition in the Washington Court to reject Kern’s request to uphold the arbitral award, the New York court had no jurisdiction to decide “only a hypothetical question” or on the basis of which future events may or may not occur.
The arbitrator first transferred the U.S. District Court from Cornea to the Columbia District Court to confirm the verdict, and then petitioned the New York District Court to declare Air India an “alternative vanity” to the Government of India. Be responsible for paying $ 1.26 billion in arbitration.
The International Arbitration Tribunal in December last year repealed the Capital Gains Tax, using the 2012 Act relating to the restructuring of Indian companies before listing in local transactions. India was ordered to repay the value of the seized and sold shares, forfeit the dividend and to repay the tax before the tax was levied.
Because India refused to pay, Kern went to court in the United States.
“Kern’s petition for confirmation of the award is pending in Columbia District Court,” AD India said in an August 23 petition to PTI.
He said the Indian government had filed an application for quashing the arrest and verdict in a court in The Hague, the capital of the International Arbitration Council.
“In fact, the complaint (by Cain Energy) is a preemptive enforcement action, disguised as a proclamation, and the DTC must get a start in enforcing the arbitral award before it has the opportunity within the federal jurisdiction of this Court. Had to address its claims of not being subject.
“Such an attempt is inappropriate and the complaint should be dismissed.”
It asked the arbitral tribunal in three cases – first, the court had no jurisdiction “to issue a judgment of notice as the alleged dispute has not yet matured”, and secondly, “Air India was exempt from the lawsuit because the sovereign immune system was not exempt from collecting a presumptive judgment in advance”. The Foreign Sovereign Immunization Act (FSIA), which applies to actions, thirdly, a complaint that considers an unenforceable judgment, fails to seek an identifiable reason for action.
The Indian government earlier this month asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss the District of Columbia (DTC), arguing that it had no jurisdiction because the country had not agreed to mediate boundary disputes. Meanwhile, New Delhi is taking steps in the Netherlands to overturn the arbitration award.
Kern asks this court to file a report on Air India, allegedly an alternative ego [India]The airline said in its petition on August 23 last year.
“The question of whether this judgment against Air India can be enforced under the Kern Alternative Ego Doctrine is not entirely academic and challenging, unless there is a court in Kern’s indictment setting the enforcement limit against (India).”
It comes just weeks after the government enacted legislation to go back to the tax authorities 50 years ago and charge capital gains even if the assets go abroad but also to abolish the tax base on commercial assets from India. The rule was used to levy a total tax of Rs 1.10 crore on 17 companies, including Rs 10,447 crore in Kern.
The Government of India and Air India are defending their position as provisions are being prepared to repeal such tax claims.
“One of the requirements for the forward fall of tax claims is that the parties concerned must promise to withdraw all cases against the state / tax authority. Therefore, while all these are pending, the government is obliged to respond to all legal action. It does not matter where the deadline is to do this,” he said. Explained to an officer.
When he resigned from the DCC on August 13, the government cited protections provided by the US Foreign Sovereignty Immunization Act of 1976.
“The court under the FSIA has no substantial jurisdiction because India has never relinquished its sovereignty immunity or accepted mediation in the current dispute with the petitioners,” India said in the case.
India refers to this case as “never” clearly and unequivocally “judicial review or the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to decide these matters”, meaning that Cairn can not make an exception to the sovereignty under US law.

“Travel lover. Annoying. Pop cultural maniac. Can’t type with boxing gloves.