The arbitral tribunal, while passing the award in 2015, had held that the termination of the contract on the part of Antrix amounted to wrongful repudiation of the contract and accordingly Article 7(b) of the contract did not limit Devas' entitlement to alleged damages that it suffered due to Antrix's repudiation of the agreement. The contract was executed between Antrix and Devas only and neither the Department of Space nor ISRO or any other government agency was a party to the contract.Īntrix had notified Devas in February 2011 that the contract was terminated, which the latter refused to accept and claimed damages by initiating arbitration proceedings. It also contained an option for Devas to lease transponders on a second satellite, GSAT-6A, referred to in the contract as Primary Satellite 2 or PS2. It provided for the lease to Devas of transponders on satellite GSAT-6, referred to in the contract as Primary Satellite 1 or PS1. The single judge had held that the impugned award suffered from "patent illegalities and fraud and is in conflict with the Public Policy of India".Īntrix is a central public sector enterprise and is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of products and services of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to national and international customers.ĭevas is a limited liability company incorporated in December 2004.Īntrix and Devas had entered into a contract on Janufor the lease of Space Segment Capacity on ISRO/ Antrix S-band Spacecraft. In August last year, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had allowed the petition filed by Antrix under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking setting aside of the arbitral award passed on September 14, 2005, by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) which had allowed the claim of Devas Multimedia Private Limited. "It would be against the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to permit Devas to reap the benefits of the ICC Award, and permitting Devas to do so would amount to this court perpetuating the fraud," it added. While the arbitral award was published on, there have been two charge sheets filed by the CBI against Devas and other individuals alleging criminal conspiracy, fraud and other corrupt practices on and and the investigation regarding the same is ongoing," observed the court. Devas has an arbitral award amounting to $562.5 million along with interest and costs, in its favour. "The facts of the present case are nothing short of peculiar. The court opined there was no perversity in the decision of a single judge when it set aside the award and thus the challenge to his conclusion should fail and giving relief to Devas would further perpetuate the fraud. A fraud of such scale would certainly render the award to be in conflict with the public policy of India," said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad. 1 (Antrix), but against the State as a whole, inasmuch as it attempts to obtain monetary benefits from the State itself, by attempting to enforce an arbitral award, which itself is arising out of fraud. The fraud propagated by Devas is not only against Respondent No. "Such is the extent of the fraud that it permeates through every agreement, transaction or award entered into by Devas. The court noted that the Supreme Court has, while dealing with a case related to the entity, itself held that Devas was incorporated for fraudulent purposes and its affairs were conducted in a fraudulent manner, and therefore, the agreement, from which the present arbitration arose, was a product of fraud. The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld an order setting aside an arbitral award directing ISRO's Antrix Corporation to pay damages of $562.2 million with interest to Devas for terminating a deal in 2011.Ī bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an appeal by Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt Ltd, a shareholder of Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd, against the order passed by a single judge of the high court and said there was no error in the earlier finding that award suffered on the grounds of "fraud" and "being in conflict with the public policy of India".
0 kommentar(er)
