{"id":287420,"date":"2023-03-21T16:00:55","date_gmt":"2023-03-21T10:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=287420"},"modified":"2023-04-05T14:35:55","modified_gmt":"2023-04-05T09:05:55","slug":"antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Delhi HC upheld setting aside of ICC Award in Antrix-Devas case | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Delhi High Court upholds Single Judge decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud in Antrix Devas arbitration case.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Delhi High Court:<\/b> In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001544942\">37<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726958\">Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (&#8220;Act&#8221;) against the judgment passed by the Single Judge, wherein the ICC Award was set aside on the grounds that it suffered from fraud, patent illegality and was in conflict with the public policy of India, the Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. and <b>Subramonium Prasad, J.<\/b>* upheld the decision of the Single Judge to set aside the ICC Award of $562.5 million, in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement on the grounds of fraud and that it was in conflict with the public policy of India.<\/p>\n<p><b>Background<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius was a shareholder of Respondent 2, Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. (&#8220;Devas Multimedia&#8221;), a company incorporated under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000055985\">Companies Act, 1956<\/a> which had been wound up under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002766251\">Companies Act, 2013<\/a>. Respondent 1, Antrix Corporation Ltd. (&#8220;Antrix&#8221;), a company incorporated under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9000055985\">Companies Act, 1956<\/a> was the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (&#8220;ISRO&#8221;) which was wholly owned by the Government of India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Antrix entered into a MoU with Forge Advisors, LLC, who made a presentation to Antrix proposing an Indian Joint Venture known as &#8220;DEVAS&#8221; (Digitally Enhanced Video and Audio Services) and it was projected that in the said proposal, DEVAS platform could deliver multimedia and information services via satellite to mobile devices tailored to the needs of various market segments. Later, Antrix entered into an agreement with Devas Multimedia and the agreement was titled &#8220;Agreement for the lease of space segment capacity on ISRO\/Antrix S-Band spacecraft by DEVAS&#8221; (&#8220;DEVAS Agreement&#8221;). Thereafter, the DEVAS Agreement was terminated by Antrix stating that the Government of India had taken a policy decision not to provide orbital slots in S-Band for commercial activities. The termination of the DEVAS Agreement by Antrix was disputed by Devas Multimedia, who invoked Article 20(a) of the DEVAS Agreement to refer the dispute to the senior management of both the parties. However, Antrix wrote to Devas Multimedia referring to the letter of termination of the DEVAS Agreement and gave a cheque of $13 million as reimbursement of the Upfront Capacity Reservation Fee already paid by Devas Multimedia under the DEVAS Agreement. Devas Multimedia returned the cheque stating that Antrix failed to state a proper basis for termination of the DEVAS Agreement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Devas Multimedia initiated arbitration proceedings against Antrix under the rules of the International Chambers of Commerce (&#8220;ICC&#8221;) seeking damages for repudiatory breach of the DEVAS Agreement by Antrix. The Arbitral tribunal published the ICC Award in favour of Devas Multimedia for damages amounting to $562.5 million for wrongful repudiation of the DEVAS Agreement by Antrix. During the pendency of proceedings before the ICC Arbitral Tribunal, CBI registered an FIR alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal misconduct, cheating and other corrupt practices on the part of Devas Multimedia and its officers. After publishing of the ICC Award, Antrix filed a petition under section 34 of the Act challenging the ICC Award. While the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act were pending, Antrix moved an application before the NCLT under Section 271(c) read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001537494\">272(1)(e)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002766251\">Companies Act, 2013<\/a> for winding up Devas Multimedia on the grounds that it was incorporated for fraudulent and unlawful purposes and the affairs of the company were being conducted in a fraudulent manner. The NCLT allowed the petition for winding up preferred by Antrix, declaring that Devas was formed for fraudulent and unlawful purposes and its affairs were conducted fraudulently. This Order was challenged by Devas Multimedia before NCLAT, which upheld the Order passed by the NCLT. Later, the Supreme Court also upheld the Order passed by the NCLAT and further held that <i>&#8220;the seeds of the commercial relationship between Antrix and Devas Multimedia were a product of fraud perpetrated by Devas Multimedia and every plant that grew out of those seeds, including an arbitral award, would be infected with the poison of fraud&#8221;<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the other hand, the Single Judge had pronounced the impugned Judgment under Section 34 of the Act by which the ICC Award had been set aside on the grounds that the ICC Award suffered from patent illegality, fraud and was in conflict with the public policy of India. The Single Judge also held that since the issue of fraud had been established by the judgment of the Supreme Court, it would operate as r<i>es judicata<\/i> between the parties. The judgment passed by the Single Judge was the subject matter of the present appeal.<\/p>\n<p><b>Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The issue before this Court was <i>&#8220;whether the findings of the Supreme Court were binding on the Single Judge under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574872\">141<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574875\">144<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\">Constitution of India<\/a> and Principle of Res Judicata?&#8221;<\/i> and <i>&#8220;whether the Single Judge was correct in setting aside the ICC award by primarily relying on the findings of the Supreme Court?&#8221;<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the appellants before this Court had submitted that the Single Judge erred by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court and submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court was not binding upon the High Court while deciding the petition under Section 34 of the Act as the decision of the Supreme Court would constitute <i>obiter dicta<\/i> and not <i>ratio decidendi<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p>The Court relied on <i>Peerless General Finance &amp; Investment Co. Ltd.<\/i> v. <i>CIT<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001063456\">(2020) 18 SCC 625<\/a>, wherein it was held that <i>&#8220;in a judgment of the Supreme Court, even pronouncements which might not strictly be construed to be ratio, would be binding upon the High Court&#8221;<\/i>. The Court relied on <i>State of Orissa<\/i> v. <i>Sudhansu Sekhar Misra<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000057994\">(1968) 2 SCR 154<\/a>; <i>Quinn<\/i> v. <i>Leathem<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002352061\">[1901] A.C. 495<\/a>; <i>Laxmi Devi<\/i> v. <i>State of Bihar<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000050390\">(2015) 10 SCC 241<\/a>; <i>State of Gujarat<\/i> v. <i>Utility Users&#8217; Welfare Assn.<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002888849\">(2018) 6 SCC 21<\/a> and laid down the following principles pertaining to the contours, connotations, meaning, ambit, scope, and binding nature of <i>ratio decidendi<\/i> and <i>obiter dicta<\/i>:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p>It was the <i>ratio decidendi<\/i> of a judgment which had the binding force of law under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574872\">141<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\">Constitution of India<\/a> and not <i>obiter dicta<\/i>. Further, an observation on facts by a Court could not be considered the <i>ratio<\/i> of the judgment, but every point raised in issue before the court, argued and decided by the Court, would form part of the <i>ratio<\/i> of the decision.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>An <i>obiter dictum<\/i> might constitute the opinion or viewpoint of a Judge which was not necessary for the final determination of the issue and statements that did not constitute the <i>ratio<\/i> of a decision would be considered to constitute <i>obiter dictum<\/i>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Judicial propriety, dignity and decorum demanded that even an <i>obiter dictum<\/i>, or pronouncements and observations of the Supreme Court that did not strictly constituted the <i>ratio<\/i> of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, although not strictly binding, ought to be accepted as binding by courts subordinate to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court opined that a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court showed that all the documents were analyzed by the Supreme Court, and it was only after analyzing the documents that the Supreme Court had upheld the findings recorded by the NCLT and NCLAT that the incorporation of Devas Multimedia was done with the fraudulent intention to grab the prestigious DEVAS Agreement. The Court noted that the Supreme Court even upheld that the finding of the NCLT that at the time of entering into the DEVAS Agreement, Devas Multimedia did not have the technology, infrastructure or experience to perform their obligations under the DEVAS Agreement and that the incorporation of Devas Multimedia was with a fraudulent motive and an unlawful object, to bring money into India and divert it by dubious methods. Thus, the Court opined that <i>&#8220;observations made by the Supreme Court were an application of law to the facts of the case and thus, in the nature of ratio and were binding on the Single Judge under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574872\">141<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\">Constitution of India<\/a>&#8221;<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further opined that the Supreme Court had heard and finally decided the issues pertaining to fraud, fundamental policy of Indian law, notions of morality or justice in its Judgment, thus, the principle of <i>res judicata<\/i> would apply in the present case and was binding upon the parties and therefore could not be brought into question in the present proceedings. The Court while justifying the stand of Single Judge, said that after such a finding had been rendered by the Supreme Court, it was not open for the Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the award, which had been held to be a product of fraud and which was in contravention of the fundamental policies of India and which was also in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice, would still be enforceable in the country. The Court opined that such a finding by the Single Judge would have been against the spirit of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574875\">144<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\">Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <i>State of Maharashtra<\/i> v. <i>Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000045075\">(2010) 4 SCC 518<\/a> and <i>State of Chhattisgarh<\/i> v. <i>Sal Udyog<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001064999\">(2022) 2 SCC 275<\/a> and opined that <i>&#8220;nothing prevented the Single Judge from relying on specific amendments to Section 34 of the Act and using them for the purpose of setting aside the ICC Award on the ground that the agreement itself was a product of fraud and, therefore, the making of award was automatically induced by fraud and corruption&#8221;<\/i>. The Court opined that <i>&#8220;the findings of the Supreme Court, which was the highest Court of the land, could not have been ignored by the Single Judge and those findings would automatically become the findings of the Single Judge while considering an application under Section 34 of the Act for which there was no necessity of a specific pleading&#8221;<\/i>. The Court noted that the Singe Judge had applied its mind to the amendment applications and had taken them into consideration while deciding the petition under Section 34 of the Act. Thus, this Court held that there was no perversity in the decision of the Single Judge wherein the Single Judge had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court to set aside the ICC Award on the grounds of fraud and that it was in conflict with the public policy of India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Devas Employees Mauritius (P) Ltd. v. Antrix Corporation Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/PT4b2Nl5\">2023 SCC OnLine Del 1608<\/a>, decided on 17-3-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt, Advocate Anuradha Dutt, Advocate Lynn Pereira, Advocate Ekta Kapil, Advocate Priyanka M.P., Advocate Chaitanya Kaushik, Advocate Amber Bhushan, Advocate Shivangi Sud, Advocate Azhar Alam, Advocate Sankalp Goswami and Advocate Srishti Prakash;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the Respondents: ASG N. Venkataraman, ASG Chetan Sharma, Advocate V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Advocate Ajay Bhargava, Advocate Arvind Kumar Ray, Advocate Karan Gupta, Advocate S. Ram Narayan, Advocate Vanito Bhargava, Advocate Rahul Vijay Kumar, Advocate Aman, Advocate Varuna Bhamral, Advocate Aubert Sebastian, Advocate Angelika Awasthi and Legal Officer Chinmoy Roy.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge&#8217;s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":284692,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2998,48388,10141,4251,56128,2695,22014,12521,34809,31196,46697,5353,56127,5363],"class_list":["post-287420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Agreement","tag-devas","tag-fraud","tag-icc","tag-icc-award","tag-ISRO","tag-nclat","tag-nclt","tag-obiter-dicta","tag-public-policy","tag-ratio-decidendi","tag-res-judicata","tag-satellite","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-21T10:30:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-05T09:05:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/\",\"name\":\"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-21T10:30:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-05T09:05:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud | SCC Times","description":"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud","og_description":"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-21T10:30:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-05T09:05:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/","name":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png","datePublished":"2023-03-21T10:30:55+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-05T09:05:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"In a case wherein an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u201cAct\u201d) against the judgment","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/21\/antrix-devas-deal-delhi-high-court-upholds-decision-setting-aside-icc-award-of-562-5-million-on-the-ground-of-fraud-legal-research-updaes-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Antrix-Devas Deal] Delhi High Court upholds decision of setting aside ICC Award of $562.5 million on the ground of fraud"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":197026,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/15\/antrix-devas-dispute-hc-allows-bangalore-city-civil-court-to-decide-upon-jurisdiction-in-the-matter\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":0},"title":"Antrix-Devas Dispute: HC allows Bangalore City Civil Court to decide upon jurisdiction in the matter","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: The Division Bench comprising S. Ravindra Bhat and Yogesh Khanna, JJ. set aside the decision of the Single Bench wherein it was that the Bangalore City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute related to arbitration between ISRO\u2019s Antrix Corporation and Devas Multimedia. An agreement\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":260248,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/18\/cant-allow-devas-and-its-shareholders-to-reap-the-benefits-of-their-fraudulent-action-sc-upholds-nclats-order-to-wind-up-devas\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":1},"title":"&#8220;Can&#8217;t allow Devas and its shareholders to reap the benefits of their fraudulent action&#8221;; SC upholds NCLAT&#8217;s order to wind up Devas\u00a0\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"If the seeds of the commercial relationship between Antrix and Devas were a product of fraud perpetrated by Devas, every part of the plant that grew out of those seeds, such as the Agreement, the disputes, arbitral awards etc., are all infected with the poison of fraud.\"","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260276,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/18\/explained-does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":2},"title":"Explained| Does failure to publish an advertisement lead to the automatic dismissal winding up petition?\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ upheld NCLAT\u2019s order of winding up of Devas Multimedia Private Limited, the requirement of advertising the winding up petition was looked into and the Court observed that the failure to publish an advertisement would not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Does-failure-to-publish-an-advertisement-lead-to-the-automatic-dismissal-winding-up-petition.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274691,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/29\/delhi-high-court-section34-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-fraud-public-policy-arbitral-tribunal-international-bar-association-rules-international-arbitration-governmenta-authority-nation\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court set aside arbitral award as it suffers from patent illegalities, and fraud and conflicts with the Public Policy of India","author":"Editor","date":"September 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u2018the Act\u2019) for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 14.09.2015 allowing the claim of the respondent, Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. has held that the impugned award dated 14.09.2015 suffers from patent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249830,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":4},"title":"Removal of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration &#038; Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 A Welcome Step | Oyo Hotels &#038; Homes (P) Ltd. v. Rajan Tewari : A case comment","author":"Editor","date":"June 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Saurabh Seth*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-2.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-2.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-2.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-2.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-2.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260809,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/29\/scc-online-weekly-rewind-episode-46-ft-nilufer-bhateja\/","url_meta":{"origin":287420,"position":5},"title":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 46 ft. Nilufer Bhateja","author":"Nilufer Bhateja","date":"January 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 46 ft. Nilufer Bhateja, Associate Editor is out now. The written episode along with the video episode can be watched and read below. \u00a0 Top News of the Week \u00a0Bishop Franco Mulakkal; A victim of faction feud in the Church and group fights of nuns?\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=287420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287420\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284692"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=287420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=287420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=287420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}