JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. Petitioner - Antrix Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Antrix') by this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeks setting aside of the Arbitral award dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce allowing the claim of the Respondent - Devas Multimedia Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Devas').

2. Antrix sought winding up of Devas under Section 271 (c) read with Section 272 (1)(e) of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT') alleging that Devas was formed for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose and its affairs had been conducted in a fraudulent manner. On 19.01.2021, a Provisional Liquidator was appointed by the NCLT and by final order dated 25.05.2021 NCLT allowed winding up of Devas.

3. The order of winding up was challenged by Devas and Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'DEMPL') before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLAT'). NCLAT by its order dated 08.09.2021 dismissed both the appeals. Thereafter the orders were assailed before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of India by its judgment dated 17.01.2022, dismissed the appeals.

4. Since the order of winding up of Devas has been upheld until the Supreme Court of India, Devas is represented in these proceedings by the Official Liquidator.

5. IA. 4940 of 2021 has been filed by Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. (DEMPL) seeking impleadment in these proceedings alleging that the official liquidator is not acting in the interest of Devas necessitating DEMPL to seek impleadment to protect the interest of Devas.

6. Mr. N Venkataraman learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Maninder Singh learned Senior Advocate appearing for Antrix and the official liquidator respectively denied that the official liquidator was not acting in the interest of Devas, however they without prejudice did not oppose the impleadment of DEMPL.

7. Accordingly, DEMPL were permitted to oppose the petition. Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Advocate appeared for DEMPL and made detailed submissions spread over several days and has also referred to various documents filed along with their applications and other pleadings and has also filed written submission and compilation to oppose the petition.

8. By the Impugned award dated 14.09.2015, the Arbitral Tribunal has 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 by reason of Antrix's repudiation of the Devas Agreement. The Tribunal thus directed Antrix to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas besides interest.

9. Though largely the submissions of the Parties focused on the findings returned by the National Company Law Tribunal, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and the Supreme Court on the question of Fraud on the part of Devas, as the impugned award has been challenged by filing objections under section 34 of the Act, and further the question of fraud allegedly committed by Devas is intrinsically intertwined with the factual matrix and finding returned by the Arbitral Tribunal, the objections raised have also been considered on merits.

10. Antrix is a Central Government Public Sector Enterprise and Government Company incorporated under the COMPANIES ACT 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in the