Introduction

The BIT between India and Uzbekistan is of fundamental importance to the economic and legal relations of the two countries. It was signed to promote investment and economic growth on both sides, particularly highlighting the role that legal treaties play in attracting foreign direct investments (FDIs). It aims at establishing a favourable atmosphere for investment with certainty, clarity, and consistency, thus, building the  trust of investors from both nations. This article examines the legal intricacies of the India-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, including its clauses, the legal background, and its interpretation and application by relevant case laws and judgments.

Background and Historical Context

As a method for fostering economic collaboration, bilateral investment treaties came into effect to safeguard foreign investors from the risks that accompany internal investments. India and Uzbekistan signed their BIT in 1999 over the need for bilateral economic relations after the breakup of the USSR and the economic liberalization of Central Asia. India with its emerging global economic power and Uzbekistan looking to diversify its economy and attract foreign investment, found mutual benefits with the treaty.

The treaty is important not only because of its economic aspect but because it also enhances diplomatic relations. For Uzbekistan, the BIT represents a step further toward globalization, while for India, it is another stride towards its “Connect Central Asia” policy of establishing relations with the geopolitically important area.

Legal Framework Overview and Principal Aspects

The BIT between India and Uzbekistan creates a comprehensive legal framework that defines the rights and duties of investors and the host states. Its provisions integrate international benchmarks while being crafted to fit the specific economic and legal realities of both countries.

Fair and Equitable Treatment Policies (FET Policies)

The FET clause is a key part of the treaty, requiring that investments are treated with fairness, reasonableness, and without capriciousness. This protection aims to shield investors from unanticipated changes in the law and policies that may be unfavourable to their investments. Although the scope of FET is a subject of ongoing international disputes, its mere presence denotes the treaty’s intention to foster a healthy investment environment.

National Treatment and Most-Favored Nation Treatment (MFN)

The BIT guarantees that foreign investors are given treatment that is equal to or better than that offered to local investors in the same conditions. Moreover, the MFN treatment clause prevents discrimination of investors by nationality, granting them privileges equal to those given to investors from other countries.

Prevention of Expropriation Expropriation is defined as the voluntary and uncompensated seizure of private property by a government. The treaty has very protective provisions dealing with unlawful expropriation stating that the investments can only be expropriated for a public purpose and only after there is due process of law accompanied by prompt, adequate and effective compensation. This provision answers one of the key risk issues of foreign investors, which is the investment’s security. 

Dispute Settlement Mechanism Another important part of the BIT is the mechanism governing disputes between investors and the host state, which are considered for arbitration in either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). These provisions show the impartiality and rule of law the treaty seeks to enforce.

Regulatory Frameworks Governing Investment in India and Uzbekistan

The regulation of the BIT is founded upon a mixture of international treaties and domestic laws. The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), along with some sector-specific regulations and judicial decisions, govern foreign investments in India. The legal infrastructure that permits the enforcement of arbitral awards is provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Meanwhile, Uzbekistan has passed several reforms to attract foreign investment, including the adoption of its Law on Investments and Law on Guarantees and Measures of Protection of Foreign Investors. Such laws are designed to remove ambiguity and give confidence to investors.

In addition, both countries have signed several treaties, including The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which allows the enforcement of arbitration awards in different jurisdictions. These international obligations enhance the effectiveness of the BIT.

Challenges in Implementing the Bilateral Investment Treaty

Despite its robust framework, the India-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty is not immune to challenges. Investor-state disputes often arise due to differing interpretations of treaty provisions, changes in domestic laws, and conflicting public policy objectives. These challenges highlight the inherent tensions between protecting investor rights and preserving state sovereignty.

Case Laws and Judicial Precedents

The case law on BITs offers relevant guidance on issues of their construction and application. Though no specific cases fall under the India-Uzbekistan BIT, there are parallel cases that help in understanding common legal problems.

One such is White Industries Australia Limited v. Republic of India (2011). In this arbitration, White Industries sought to use the MFN clause in India’s BIT with Kuwait for its procedural safeguards. The favourable ruling of the tribunal to the investor raised the concern that MFN provisions could expand the reach of treaties beyond their intended scope which could be detrimental to state power.

Oppositely, Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan (2013) is an example of how tribunals consider allegations of fraud. The ICSID tribunal did not accept Metal-Tech’s claims because there was proof of fraud. This serves as a reminder of the principle that investors should not come to legal disputes with unclean hands, meaning their behaviour must satisfy the legal requirements of the host country.

Another case is Vodafone International Holdings BV v. India (2012) in which the Indian Supreme Court decided in favour of the investor in a taxation matter. While the case doesn’t concern a BIT, it was part of a larger conversation concerning the coherence of India’s BITs and treaty obligations.

Judicial Interpretation and Emerging Trends

Domestic and foreign courts have had an important impact on the development of the law of BITs. Important components of judicial reasoning are:

Scope of Arbitrability: There is a controversy for the court and certain procedures regarding whether some disputes are included in BIT arbitration. For example, controversies about public policy or taxation frequently challenge the outer limits of the treaty provision. 

Public Policy Considerations: The Indian courts have noted the importance of public policy concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards. This principle vividly expressed in cases like ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd Dec 4th 2003, has significant effects on BIT disputes.

Investor Obligations: There are more and more tribunals willing to examine the actions of investors such as in Metal-Tech. This marks a noticeable shift towards more responsibility for investors.

Evolving Legal and Policy Landscape

India and Uzbekistan have both enacted reforms aimed at improving the issues associated with Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). India’s 2016 revision to the Model BIT was perhaps the most radical in the history of Indian treaties as it focused on the state’s protection, control, and economic development in juxtaposition to investment and development. Other drastic modifications were the removal of Most Favored Nation provisions, a much more restrictive scope of the definition of investment, and a precondition for investors that means domestic remedies have to be utilized first before arbitration.

Uzbekistan, in particular, has attempted to improve her investment more recently. Some of the latest initiatives have included minimal tax administration, tax benefits, and strengthening the fight against corruption. These reforms aim to attract more responsible foreign direct investment while protecting the national interests.

Future of India-Uzbekistan Investment Ties

The challenges of foreign investment can also be seen in the India-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty. Although it provides a strong base to facilitate economic cooperation, its success is dependent on the political will of both countries to honour these terms. The shift in these sectors because of judicial decisions and policy changes requires an approach that gives equal focus on protecting investors while protecting sovereignty.

Both India and Uzbekistan are bolstering their economic and political relations, and we know that the BIT will remain important in driving that relationship. The treaty is meant to improve investor confidence which seeks a stable and transparent environment by contributing to effective cooperation and sustainable economic growth. Both countries will need to keep pace to face new threats to effectively utilize the BIT as an instrument of economic partnership.

The post India-Uzbekistan Bilateral Investment Treaty: Legal Insights appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The idea of multilateralism has increasingly developed within the context of globalization over the past few decades, with its attending challenges such as the growing interdependence among nations, the economy, climate change, cyber security, and public health issues. Out of numerous international coalitions, BRICS – made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – stands out as a remarkable united front of major emerging economies. While primarily regarded as an economic and political alliance, the increasing importance of the BRICS in multilateral legal cooperation is remarkable and provides a unique opportunity to strengthen global governance reforms.

The Genesis and Objectives of BRICS

BRICS was formalized in 2009 without South Africa’s inclusion at first. It joined the rest of the grouping in 2010. The coalition was established primarily to counter the influence of Western institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which have previously enjoyed a monopoly over world governance. With time, BRICS has increased its focus from purely economic or political interactions to science, education, technology, and even law. The grouping’s emphasis on diversity—featuring members from different continents and legal cultures—has deepened the collaborative potential of the group, particularly regarding institutional and legal aspects.

The cooperation in law within BRICS is premised on equitable development objectives, under-representation in global governance, and framed through common problems and mutual understanding. Such objectives require the establishment of strong legal instruments about conflict resolution, trade, and international compliance. The alignment of legal politics and systems among BRICS members becomes indispensable for achieving these goals, particularly because of the varied legal systems among the member states.

Legal Frameworks and Institutions in BRICS

The intergovernmental framework of BRICS is based on legally non-binding agreements, action plans, and declarations. In contrast, legal documents in the EU are created under the authority of treaties. Those non-legal documents may indicate the plans of the organization, however, they are realistic only at the declarative level. Such frameworks have sufficed for BRICS thus far, enabling it to deal with shifting global realities for its members’ sovereignities intact.

In 2014, BRICS countries formed the New Development Bank as an infrastructural and development funding bank, which illustrates the growing legal and institutional framework of BRICS. Its unique governance, granting every member economy equal votes regardless of their size, illustrates BRICS’ mandate which transcends unequal power structures. Its other mandate is even more novel: offering Contingent Reserve Arrangement CRA, which acts as a shield for member states in an economic storm, highlighting how institutional legal documents can cultivate financial security. The NDB and CRA serve as reminders of how lacking coherent legal frameworks hinders cooperation and the aid of financial and institutional resources.

Areas of Legal Collaboration

Legal collaboration within BRICS is done in multiple areas to consider the complexity of issues in different member countries and the need for a collective approach. This includes trade and investment law, environmental law, cybersecurity, data protection, and even human rights. The goal is to where it is legally feasible, unify laws and practices in a as flexible way as possible in light of the existing legal traditions of each member state.

Trade and investment issues are among the most important areas within the legal collaboration between BRICS countries. Attempts have been made to unify the trade policies and minimize trade restrictions among the members. The legal means in this area include bilateral investment treaties (BITs), double taxation avoidance treaties (DTAAs), and memorandums of agreement (MOAs). Legal disputes and case law among the BRICS countries have shown the gaps in these countries with proper legal mechanisms. Indian investors and Russian authorities had an arbitration case under the India-Russia BIT. Brazil’s new approach to BITs, which makes non-judicial dispute settlement the primary feature, is a good candidate to serve as a model for established developing countries. With increasing trade among these countries, so many legal issues such as the rights of foreign investors, protection of investors’ interests against hostile takeovers, and trade dispute resolution arise which need to be dealt with by legal systems.

Given how its members are constantly facing ecological challenges, environmental sustainability is of critical concern for BRICS. Brics’ legal cooperation has been focused on climate change through the Environment Ministers’ Meeting and joint declarations. The Paris Agreement of 2015 provides a global structure for environmental law, which the member states seek to implement, and within the group, BRICS advocates for its implementation. In addition, India’s commitment to renewable energy, and China’s position in green technology, illustrate how domestic legal instruments can serve multilateral objectives. Legal disputes which pertain to compliance with environmental protection, such as South Africa’s court case on mining and biodiversity issues, underscore the necessity for well-developed legal frameworks that will enable development whilst protecting the environment. With the impact of climate change worsening, BRICS member states must strive to develop and implement legal instruments that serve to protect the environment.

In this period of digital changes, data protection and cybersecurity have become focal points of collaboration within BRICS. The member states have acknowledged the existing gap of unified legislation on cybercrimes, privacy, and data sovereignty. Apart from integrating cybersecurity measures within the region, some BRICS members are part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which has an agreement on information security. China’s Cybersecurity Law and India’s Personal Data Protection Bill are examples of how single-nation legal systems can create multilateral norms. Other significant case laws such as the Aadhaar verdict in India, which endorsed the violation of privacy, also tend to play an important role in the legal dialogue within BRICS. Establishing fundamental principles for the governance of cyberspace, digital technologies, and information security will facilitate the reduction of transnational cybercrime and the violation of citizens’ rights in the region.

While still differing in their political and legal systems, social justice as well as human rights are some areas where BRICS members have sought common ground. Collaboration is being done in this regard with a specific focus on labour issues, gender-based violence, and access to justice. Take for example South Africa; her constitution is one of the most progressive in the world because it recognizes and guarantees socio-economic rights, which serves as a guide to other BRICS member countries. The way Brazil fights modern slavery through stringent employment laws and India’s aid for women’s legal empowerment showcases how domestic legal systems facilitate international objectives. International precedents such as those provided by the International Labour Organization (ILO) have had an impact on the way BRICS countries deal with legal and social justice issues. The gap in existing laws and the law creates the opportunity to legally promote social justice and equal distribution of national wealth among the member countries.

Regulation and Oversight Mechanisms

Intergovernmental interactions, specialized working groups, and yearly summits are the main channels through which legal collaboration within BRICS is managed. These channels guarantee member states’ interaction as well as their sharing of optimal methods. Along with the other members, BRICS has collaborated with international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and The International Labor Organization (ILO) to make sure that their policies comply with global standards. This emphasizes the role of international law in the collaboration of BRICS members states’ in legal affairs.

In terms of enforcing monitoring and effective implementation of agreements, BRICS has considered joint task forces and periodic monitoring as possible mechanisms. These efforts, although limited, demonstrate the coalition’s progressive intention toward responsibility and openness. With all these positive attributes, the absence of a formal judicial institution within BRICS is a barrier to dispute resolution and compliance enforcement.

Challenges in Legal Collaboration

Although BRICS is making progress in legal integration, some challenges remain. The integration of laws is often hindered by the variety of legal systems, political values, and economic interests of member states. For example, the common law traditions in India and South Africa are very different from the civil law traditions of Brazil, Russia, and China. These gaps involve extensive bargaining and accommodating to reach mutually satisfactory goals.

Existing conflicts within BRICS, for example on the trade restrictions and the protection of trademarks, demonstrate even more the gaps for efficient mechanisms for resolving these disputes. The lack of a binding legal document within BRICS makes it difficult to enforce agreements and compliance monitoring is practically impossible. Also, some member states are geopolitically antagonistic towards each other, having border conflicts and unbalanced trade relations, which slows down cooperation and decreases confidence.

Case Laws and Judgments

Case laws and judicial decisions play a crucial role in shaping the legal discourse within BRICS. For example, the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the Vodafone tax dispute highlighted the complexities of international taxation and its implications for foreign investors. The Brazilian judiciary’s rulings on environmental protection, such as the ban on mining in indigenous territories, have set important precedents for sustainable development. Russian arbitration cases involving foreign investors have underscored the importance of transparent legal systems in attracting investment. These judgments and their implications highlight the interplay between domestic and international legal systems within the BRICS framework.

The Future of Legal Collaboration in BRICS

The prospects of legal cooperation in BRICS depend on its effectiveness in solving issues and transforming challenges into opportunities. Some of the institutional balancing priorities are: the enhancement of institutional mechanisms; capacity building; and public-private partnership development. Creating a permanent legal forum or an arbitration centre for BRICS would improve the resolution of conflicts and harmonization of laws. Such an institution could also lead discussions on new legal problems, such as those of artificial intelligence and biotechnology.

Training specialists, judges, and policymakers jointly in international law helps in building shared constructs. Such initiatives will enhance the domestic legal orders while also assisting in the development of multilateral legal order principles. Collaboration between the governments and the private sector can lead to advancements in digital and environmental law. Complex legal problems can be solved and sustainable development promoted if resources and skills are shared in BRICS.

Conclusion

Although it’s recent, BRICS has developed into a single point of contact for multilateral legal cooperation. The member countries can achieve a certain balance in the global legal system by using their combined strengths and dealing with common problems. BRICS’s success will, however, rely on its capacity to make headway on national interests versus collective aims, while at the same time sustaining justice, equity, and the rule of law. As the world becomes greatly globalized, the need for legal cooperation within BRICS will surely expand, providing other multilateral initiatives with a model to follow.

The post BRICS: A Platform for Multilateral Legal Collaboration appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The association between Southeast Asia and India has evolved into a strong partnership, spanning trade, investment, regional connectivity, and security. Through its Look East Policy (1991), later transformed into the Act East Policy (2014), India has strategically positioned itself to strengthen ties with Southeast Asia. This article explores the legal and economic dimensions of India-ASEAN relations, focusing on regulatory frameworks, international agreements, and legal precedents shaped by case law.

Historical Context and Evolution of India-ASEAN Relations

India commenced its engagement with ASEAN in 1992 when it became a Sectoral Dialogue Partner. India was elevated to the status of Full Dialogue Partner in 1996 which was an important step towards closer relations. Further deepening of this relationship occurred with India joining the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in 2003. These changes were supported and motivated by bilateral economic interests, geopolitical factors, and cultural connections dating back to ancient maritime trade and common legacy.

The introduction of the Act East Policy in 2014 marked a new phase in India’s foreign policy where ASEAN and the region became primary partners in the Indo-Pacific focus. This policy revolves around deeper economic engagement, increased mobility, as well as cooperation on defence and other strategic matters. These aims are supported legally through bilateral and multilateral contracts which serve as a strong basis for India-ASEAN relations. All these historical facts have fostered the relations built on mutual trust, shared concerns, common values, and aspirations for prosperity and peace in the region.

Legal Frameworks Governing India-ASEAN Relations

The ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA)

As the primary basis of economic collaboration, the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) was formulated in 2010. In 2009, the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement was signed to abolish tariffs on more than 90% of goods traded which was later supplemented by the AIFTA. This agreement is made by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) policies. 

India and the ASEAN member countries have agreed to maintain an open and rule-based trading system under the AIFTA. Provisions that are in dispute are dealt with in terms of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of the WTO. This helps to ensure that international standards relating to law are adhered to in trade, thus ensuring consistency and equity. The AIFTA provides more efficient market access and dispute resolution which improves trade for economic development and stability in the region.

Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)

To foster and secure foreign investments, India has entered into Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with several ASEAN nations. These treaties offer legal protection from expropriation, guarantee equal and just treatment, and offer provisions for investor-state arbitration (ISDS). For example, India’s BIT with Singapore—an ASEAN member—has led to considerable cross-border investments, especially in services and technology. Including ISDS provisions demonstrates a willingness to address investor grievances while maintaining control over domestic regulations. These treaties encompass the economic relationship’s legal framework, incentivizing foreign direct investments and nurturing business developer confidence.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

Even though India withdrew from the RCEP talks in 2019, its interaction with ASEAN within this larger regional context is still important. India’s position has been influenced by its apprehensions concerning entry into the markets, non-tax obstacles, and probable consequences on its local businesses. Still, India is looking to find solutions to these concerns through other many bilateral conversations. Staying out of the RCEP does not stop India from employing other investment and trade opportunities with ASEAN, showing a realistic attitude towards maintaining the country’s needs while participating in regional collaboration.

Maritime Law and Regional Security

India’s strategic interests in ASEAN are also governed by international maritime law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As a signatory to UNCLOS, India supports freedom of navigation, peaceful resolution of disputes, and adherence to the principles of international law. This aligns with ASEAN’s own emphasis on maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, a region marked by competing territorial claims. India’s proactive stance in upholding UNCLOS reflects its broader commitment to a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.

Economic Frameworks and Collaboration

Trade and Investment

India’s trade with ASEAN economies grew greatly by 275%, amounting to roughly USD 98 billion in the year 2022-23. Founded on mutual respect and shared interests, ASEAN is the fourth largest trading partner of India, which also ranks among the top five trading partners of ASEAN. This economic partnership is strengthened through frameworks such as the AIFTA and various bilateral agreements with individual member states. The flow of goods and services in the region has further fueled Indian investment in ASEAN countries in a variety of sectors, particularly in pharmaceuticals, information technology, and engineering goods. On the other hand, ASEAN countries have also become substantial foreign direct investors in India, especially in infrastructure, renewable energy, and digital technologies. It is the combination of these legal instruments activities and their economic interactions that have strengthened relations between India and ASEAN, ensuring that they become an important axis in the region’s economic equilibrium.

Connectivity Projects

Connectivity is at the heart of India’s engagement with ASEAN. Projects like the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project seek to improve physical connectivity for trade purposes. These projects are funded by bilateral and multilateral contracts which provide legal and financial responsibility. Improved connectivity lowers trade expenses and strengthens people-to-people relations, aiding socio-economic integration. 

Besides physical infrastructure, importance has also been placed on digital infrastructure. Projects like ASEAN-India ICT Cooperation seek to reduce the gap between encouraging and supporting inter and intra-technological innovation and cooperation. The integration of digital frameworks into connecting projects stresses the need for legal and regulatory frameworks to provide cybersecurity and data privacy.

Judicial and Jurisprudential Dimensions

Landmark Judgments

Often India-ASEAN legal conflicts are settled by an international tribunal/court. Take, for example, White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India (2011). The tribunal emphasized the role of BIT in protecting the rights of the investor in arbitration. This case did not involve ASEAN directly, but it was important in terms of investment treaties which included ASEAN member countries. These decisions show the importance of international law and arbitration in protecting investment and resolving conflicts. 

Legal Aspects of Sea Conflicts

India has been increasingly stressing the role of law in solving sea conflicts, which is different from how ASEAN countries deal with the South China Sea. In any case, India’s maritime strategy would benefit from The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in The Philippines v. China (2016) which cancelled China’s wide-ranging claims to seas. India is not involved in this dispute but he has endorsed the rules set in this decision and supports following UNCLOS. This is a key example to study the combination of maritime law, regional geopolitics, and India in the world.

Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities

Non-Tariff Barriers

Even with the available legal structures, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are still a notable problem when it comes to India and ASEAN trade relations. These cover setbacks about standards, certification, and customs procedures. Solving NTBs involves regulation integration and recognition deals which are under negotiation. To elevate the level of India-ASEAN economic cooperation, it is imperative to overcome these NTBs. 

Sustainable Development and Climate Change 

Notably, both India and the ASEAN region have considered stable development as an area of cooperation. Legislative provisions of NBA laws such as the Paris Agreement reinforce the scope for cross-national actions in renewable energy, biodiversity, and disaster management. India’s International Solar Alliance (ISA) as well as Renewable energy goals from ASEAN provides opportunities for collaborative efforts and policy development. These cases are proof of the efforts towards sustainable growth and a global declamation issue.

Looking Ahead and Strategic Considerations

The prospects for India to engage with ASEAN are likely to broaden further due to mutual interests in furthering economic development, stabilizing the region, and promoting sustainability. Strengthening legal and institutional frameworks will be essential in responding to challenges while putting the best possible arrangements in place. Building trust and responding to Indian multilateralism will enhance regional Indian cooperation and is crucial for the future of India- ASEAN relations.

Fostering Multilateralism

ASEAN’s multilateralism is India’s advocacy of the ‘ASEAN Way’ approach. Participation in events like the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) makes an active contribution to the rule of law and the fight against terrorism, cybercrime, and pandemics. These efforts and India’s activism in such forums are clear indications of his commitment towards stability in the region and the world.

Promoting People-to-People Mobility

Educational and cultural relations are part of important components of India and ASEAN relations. Activities like the ASEAN-India Youth Summit and scholarships for Indian universities are geared toward fostering goodwill and understanding between the two regions. Such activities are part of the soft power interventions of India’s Act East Policy to balance economic and strategic national interests.

Conclusion

India’s contribution towards ASEAN stems from an economic and legal structure which enables cooperation in several areas. India has become a dependable partner in the region by merging its policy with ASEAN’s goals as well as complying with international legal standards. Moving forward, there is a need for continuous work towards overcoming regulatory barriers, enhancing economic relationships, and meeting multilateralism standards. With these actions, both India and ASEAN can work towards a collaborative, stable, and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. The strong focus on shared objectives and readiness towards economic and legal integration guarantees a bright future for relations between ASEAN and India.

The post India-ASEAN Relations: Legal and Economic Frameworks appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.