44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"...

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an ...

India, along with 10 other countries, has signed the Nagoya Protocol on Genetic Resources, with an aim to promote sustainable use of biological diversity.

The objective of the Protocol is to share the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way, which would promote sustainable use of biological diversity but not exploit it or those who claim a right over its components.

SO "D" IS THE CORRECT OPTION.....

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30th October, 2010 is

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tones used by the author in the passage?

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. Which of the following is making it difficult for the Vodafone to sustain in the market?

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. According to the passage, for how long has Vodafone been stuck in this taxation matter, considering the author penned down the piece in September 2020?

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. Which of the following would have probably reduced the span of time for which the case has been dragged? 1. Prospective application of amended law in the tax regime, instead of retrospective application of law. 2. The deal between Hutch and Vodafone would have taken place with permission of the government. 3. Payment of Gross Revenue Dues by Vodafone.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.?.

Solutions for ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.?, a detailed solution for ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? has been provided alongside types of ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice ? 44. Nagoya Protocol, signed by India on 30"October, 2010 is: (a) an international treaty of bilateral investment between India and Japan (b) an international treaty to ensure that local produce are exploited only under license and for the common good of the mankind (c) an international treaty to ensure that the benefits of natural resources and their commercial derivatives are shared with local communities (d) None of the above.? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam