SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 757

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Suhail Dutt, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Lynn Pereira, Ms. Ekta Kapil, Ms. Priyanka M. P., Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Mr. Amber Bhushan, Ms. Shivangi Sud, Mr. Azhar Alam, Mr. Sankalp Goswami and Ms. Srishti Prakash, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG and Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Arvind Kumar Ray, Mr. Karan Gupta, Mr. S. Ram Narayan, Ms. Vanito Bhargava, Mr. Rahul Vijay Kumar, Mr. Aman, Advocates with Mr. Chinmoy Roy, Legal Officer, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Varuna Bhamral, Mr. Aubert Sebastian and Ms. Angelika Awasthi, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Set aside of ICC arbitral award - Found to suffer from fraud, patent illegality, and conflict with public policy of India - The Apex Court held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and must be established for any enforcement - The learned Single Judge set aside the ICC Award based on findings in prior proceedings which determined the parties' activities as fraudulent. (Paras 53-115)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, challenging the setting aside of an arbitral award issued in favor of Devas, contended that the learned Single Judge relied heavily on the findings of the Supreme Court pertaining to fraud and public policy regarding the Devas Agreement. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the commercial relationship between Antrix and Devas was founded on fraud, invalidating the agreement. (Paras 1-12)

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge properly determined that the findings regarding fraud rendered by the Supreme Court in previous proceedings were binding and established that the ICC Award must be set aside due to its fraudulent origins. (Paras 73-102)

Issues: The main issues revolved around whether the findings of the Supreme Court constitute binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution, and the applicability of res judicata in the context of earlier proceedings focused on the same parties and issues. (Paras 54-80)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that findings from higher courts regarding fraud are binding, and the phrase 'the Court finds that' in the relevant statutes allows the court to discover grounds for nullifying awards without specific pleadings if fraud is indicated by the facts. (Paras 85-104)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top