[1] Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. and others, French Court of Cassation’s judgment dated 6 November 2024 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2024:C100592). About the US Court []
[2]
[6.4], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
Articles 19 and 20, Devas Agreement
[2] [6.30] – [6.31], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. And another, (2021) 227 Comp Cas 572
[2]
Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. and others v. Antrix Corporation Ltd. and others, (2022) 231 Comp Cas 516
[2]
Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corporation Limited and Another, (2023) 1 SCC 216
[2] In terms of the amendment, enforcement of an arbitral award may suspended if it is clear prima facie, among other things, “that the … contract which is the basis of the award … was induced or effected by fraud or corruption.” [Amendment to Section 36, the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, No. 14 of 2020, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, dated 4 Nov. 2020]
[2]
Antrix filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act with the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for a protective measure. It supplemented this application with an application to set aside the ICC Award. Devas also filed an action under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Delhi High Court.
[2]
Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia P. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2622
[2]
Devas Employees Mauritius P. Ltd. v. Antrix Corporation Ltd. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1608
[2]
Devas Employees Fund US LLC v. Antrix Corporation Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2485
[2]
As per the CSA, DMAI is entitled to 30% of the amount it collects under the ICC Award. Further, as per Article 2.3 of the CSA, DMAI agreed that it shall at all times adhere to the instructions, requests, and policies of Devas regarding any activities relating to the performance of the collection services under the CSA.
[2]
[6.9] – [6.10], The Hague Court of Appeal Judgment (“Court of Appeal Judgment”)
[2]
[6.11] & [6.13], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
HR 26 September 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2838
[2]
[3.6.4], ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2838, (Gazprombank); see also [4.1.2] HR 18 January 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:54, (Yukos)
[2]
Article 6 (Right to Fair Trial), ECHR
[2]
[4.1.3]-[ 4.1.4] HR 18 January 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:54, (Yukos)
[2]
Devas argued that authoritative public sources show that the Indian judiciary is not sufficiently independent and impartial when state interests are at stake, as was the case in the liquidation proceedings. The Court of Appeal finds that from the data presented by DMAI in this regard the correctness of such a general statement cannot be inferred. The Court of Appeal held that it would assess whether the judges in this particular case complied with the requirement of due process (see [6.26] – [6.27], Court of Appeal Judgment).
[2]
[6.28], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
[6.29], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
[6.36], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
[6.37], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
[6.38] – [6.39], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
[6.39], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
[6.40], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2] [6.41], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
[6.42]-[6.43], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
[6.44], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
Article V(1)(e), New York Convention
[2]
[3.4.6], HR Nov. 24, 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2992 (Alaximov/NLMK)
[2]
[6.51], Court of Appeal Judgement
[2]
[6.53], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2] [6.60], Court of Appeal Judgment; [35], Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560
[2]
[6.62], Court of Appeal Judgment
[2]
[2]-[3], Netherland’s Supreme Court’s Decision dated 6 March 2026
