Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Appointed Arbitrator by Russia in Oschadbank Treaty Dispute

In a historic first, former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud steps into the international arbitration arena as Russia's appointed arbitrator in a multi-million-dollar investment treaty dispute with Ukraine's Oschadbank. Here is a complete legal analysis of the appointment, the dispute, and its implications for international law. When India's 50th Chief Justice retired in November 2024, the legal world expected him to shape policy or academia. Instead, Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud has taken a seat at one of the most geopolitically charged arbitral tribunals in modern history — appointed by Russia to adjudicate a claim worth hundreds of millions of dollars brought by Ukraine's largest state-owned bank. The Appointment and the Dispute According to Global Arbitration Review (GAR), reporting on August 7, 2026, Russia has formally appointed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud as its party-appointed arbitrator in a new investment treaty arbitration initiated by Joint Stock Company "State Savings Bank of Ukraine" (JSC Oschadbank). The dispute arises under the 1998 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation ("the Ukraine-Russia BIT"), and is being constituted as a three-member tribunal. Costa Rican arbitrator Dyal Jiménez, jointly selected by both parties, will preside as Chair. Greek arbitrator and National University of Singapore Professor Stavros Brekoulakis serves as Oschadbank's nominee. Background of the Claim The arbitration — styled as Oschadbank v. Russian Federation (II) — concerns Oschadbank's substantial assets and banking operations across the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine. The bank asserts that it suffered devastating financial losses following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and, more significantly, after Russia's full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. According to Oschadbank's CEO Sergii Naumov, the total negative impact of Russia's actions on the bank stands at approximately US$460 million, including around US$379 million in distinguishable direct losses. The proceedings were initiated following a notice of dispute served upon Russia in July 2025, which reportedly went unanswered. The Legal Framework: Ukraine-Russia BIT 1998 The arbitration is grounded in the 1998 Agreement Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments. The treaty establishes substantive investor protections including fair and equitable treatment, protection against expropriation without compensation, and full protection and security for investments. Significantly, Article 14(3) of the BIT contains a sunset clause ensuring that the treaty's protections survive its termination for a further ten-year period for investments made prior to termination. This provision is of critical importance because Ukraine formally terminated the BIT with effect from January 27, 2025, through legislation passed on August 10, 2023. The sunset clause ensures that Oschadbank's claim — relating to investments made well before termination — remains legally viable. Oschadbank's First Arbitration: The US$1.3 Billion Award This new arbitration is Oschadbank's second treaty claim against Russia. In its first case, Oschadbank v. Russia (I), the bank claimed losses arising from the seizure of its Crimean assets following the 2014 annexation. In 2018, a Paris-seated tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules awarded Oschadbank approximately US$1.1 billion in compensation, which with accumulated interest rose to approximately US$1.3 billion. The case subsequently endured tortuous proceedings before the French courts. The Paris Court of Appeal set aside the award in 2021, accepting Russia's argument that the BIT's arbitration clause applied only to investments made after the bank's Crimean branch had opened. However, the French Court of Cassation reinstated the award in 2022, holding that the relevant provision could not be reviewed by French courts under the applicable standard. The Paris Court of Appeal more recently annulled certain supplementary decisions relating to Russia's revision request, citing doubts about arbitrator Charles Brower's impartiality arising from an amicus curiae brief he co-signed. Justice Chandrachud's Arbitration Credentials Justice Chandrachud's appointment is not merely symbolic — it rests upon a formidable body of arbitration jurisprudence developed during his tenure on the Supreme Court of India. His landmark decision in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) , delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench, formally adopted the Group of Companies Doctrine in India, holding that non-signatories can be bound by arbitration agreements under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . His seven-judge bench ruling in NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) upheld the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz — the competence-competence doctrine — holding that insufficiently stamped arbitration agreements constitute a curable defect and that arbitral tribunals retain jurisdiction to determine their own competence. In SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) , a three-judge bench including CJI Chandrachud overruled the restrictive approach in NTPC v. SPML, reaffirming that judicial non-interference in arbitral autonomy must be placed on "the highest pedestal." Additionally, in International Seaport Dredging v. Kamarajar Port Limited (2024) , CJI Chandrachud described the Arbitration Act as a "self-contained code" and held that no distinction shall be made between private and government entities in arbitration proceedings. Previous Interactions with Russia-Related Arbitrations GAR further reported that Russia first approached Chandrachud in 2025 to serve as its arbitrator in separate investment treaty cases brought by German energy group Wintershall Dea and Ukrainian energy company Ukrenergo, following the resignation of Russia's previous appointee, Hamid Gharavi. Chandrachud declined to act in both cases. On the same day he was approached, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) appointed him as the appointing authority in the Wintershall arbitration, creating a potential conflict that led him to step down from that role after disclosing his communications with Russia. His acceptance of the Oschadbank appointment, therefore, represents a considered and deliberate entry into international investor-state dispute resolution after carefully navigating earlier conflicts of interest. Representation and Enforcement Proceedings Oschadbank is represented in the new arbitration by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (partners Epaminontas Triantafilou and Alex Gerbi, London) and Asters (partners Oleksiy Didkovskiy, Andrii Pozhidayev, and Oksana Legka, Kyiv). Russia is represented by Pinna Goldberg (partner Andrea Pinna, counsel Pratyush Panjwani, and senior associate Dimitrios Papageorgiou, Paris). Simultaneously, Oschadbank continues enforcement efforts for its original US$1.3 billion award, with proceedings active in the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland, and the Czech Republic, alongside discovery proceedings in New York. Significance for Indian Legal Jurisprudence and International Arbitration The appointment carries profound significance for India's positioning in the global arbitration landscape. Justice Chandrachud had publicly stated during his tenure as CJI that "the time has come for India to take a lead in international arbitration." His acceptance of this appointment signals that eminent Indian jurists can command the trust of sovereign nations in the most high-stakes, geopolitically sensitive disputes. It aligns with India's broader ambition to emerge as a credible hub for international dispute resolution, consistent with ongoing proposals to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This development demonstrates that India's contribution to global arbitration is no longer limited to domestic jurisprudence — it now extends to the very tribunals deciding disputes between warring sovereign nations. KEY CASE LAWS REFERENCED: Oschadbank v. Russian Federation (I) — US$1.1 billion award (2018), UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Paris-seated tribunal Oschadbank v. Russian Federation (II) — New claim (April 2026), Ukraine-Russia BIT 1998 Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) — Group of Companies Doctrine, Constitution Bench, Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 NN Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) — Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle, seven-judge bench SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) — Arbitral autonomy and judicial non-interference International Seaport Dredging v. Kamarajar Port Limited (2024) — Arbitration Act as self-contained code, Section 18 equality principle DMRC v. DAMEPL (2024) — Curative jurisdiction and public interest in arbitration KEY STATUTORY PROVISIONS: Article 14(3), Ukraine-Russia Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1998 (Sunset Clause) Section 2(1)(h), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Definition of "party") Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Agreement) Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Equal Treatment of Parties) Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Referral to Arbitration) Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Appointment of Arbitrators) UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (governing procedural framework)