IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Antrix Corporation Limited & Ors. – Respondents
FAO(OS) (COMM) 289 of 2022 & CAV 321 of 2022, CAV 322 of 2022, CM APPLs. 44209 of 2022, 44211 of 2022
Decided On : 17-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of devas and antrix's agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. initial arguments presented by the appellant/dempl. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. arguments and legal principles invoked by the appellant. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. analysis of binding findings from supreme court. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 5. final observations and implications of fraud. (Para 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 6. conclusion of the judgment and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 115) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act" 'or "the A&C Act"), has been filed against the Judgment dated 29.08.2022 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (Comm.) No. 11/2021, filed by Respondent No. 1 ("Antrix"') under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as "Section 34 Petition") to challenge the ICC Arbitral Award dated 14.09.2015 ('hereinafter referred to as "'the ICC Award") passed in favour of the Respondent No. 2 ("Devas"). The Ld. Single Judge, vide the Impugned Judgment has set aside the ICC Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the grounds that it suffers from fraud, patent illegality and is in conflict with the public policy of India.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
2. The Appellant herein ("Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd." or "DEMPL") is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and is a shareholder, owning 3.48% of the issued and paid-up equity share capital of Respondent No. 2/Devas Multimedia Private Limited ("Devas"). Respondent No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which has since been wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is represented in the present proceedings through its Official Liquidator.
3. The Respondent No.1/Antrix Corporation Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) which is wholly owned by the Government of India.
4. Respondent No.1/Antrix entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Forge Advisors, LLC, a Virginia Corporation, USA. Forge Advisors made a presentation to Respondent No.1/Antrix Corporation Limited proposing an Indian Joint Venture which has now came to be known as "DEVAS" (Digitally Enhanced Video and Audio Services). It was projected in the said proposal that DEVAS platform will be capable of delivering multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile devices tailored to the needs of various market segments. This presentation was followed by a proposal to form a strategic partnership to launch DEVAS that delivers video, multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile receivers in vehicles and mobile phones across India. Under the said proposal, it was contemplated to form a joint venture which would cast an obligation on the part of ISRO and Antrix, to invest in one operational S-Band satellite with a ground space segment to be leased to the joint venture. In return, ISRO and Antrix were to receive lease payments of USD 11 million annually for a period of 15 years. In pursuance of the said proposal, several meetings were held between the representatives of Forge and ISRO/Antrix. On 17.12.2004, Devas Multimedia Private Limited, Respondent No.2 herein, was incorporated as a private company under the Companies Act, 1956, and the Respondent No.1/Antrix entered into an Agreement with Respondent No.2/Devas Multimedia Private Limited on 28.01.2005. The said Agreement was titled as "Agreement for the lease of space segment capacity on ISRO/Antrix S-Band spacecraft by DEVAS". The preamble of the said Agreement stated that Devas was developing a platform capable of delivering multimedia and information services via satellite and terrestrial system to mobile receivers, tailored to the needs of various market segments in the country and in return Devas ha
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra
Bhaven Construction v. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.
Bijendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava
Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Divisional Controller v. Mahadeva Shetty
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Jamia Masjid v. Sri KV Rudrappa
K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy
Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh
P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar
Patel Engineering Limited v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited
Peerless General Finance and Invest Company Ltd. v. CIT
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors.
Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh
Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors.
State of Chhatisgarh v Sal Udyog
State of Gujarat v. Utility Users Welfare Association
State of Haryana v. Ranbir Alias Rana
State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction
State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka
The court upheld the arbitrator's award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference in arbitration matters.
The Court held that the impugned award with respect to Claim 7 was not well-reasoned as required by the Act under Section 31(3), and the impugned award with respect to the award in Claim 11 is contra....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.