![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
The court noted that the Supreme Court has, while dealing with a case related to the entity, itself held that Devas was incorporated for fraudulent purposes and its affairs were conducted in a fraudulent manner, and therefore, the agreement, from which the present arbitration arose, was a product of fraud.
\"Such is the extent of the fraud that it permeates through every agreement, transaction or award entered into by Devas. The fraud propagated by Devas is not only against Respondent No. 1 (Antrix<\/a>), but against the State as a whole, inasmuch as it attempts to obtain monetary benefits from the State itself, by attempting to enforce an arbitral award, which itself is arising out of fraud. A fraud of such scale would certainly render the award to be in conflict with the public policy of India,\" said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.
The court opined there was no perversity in the decision of single judge when it set aside award and thus the challenge to his conclusion should fail and giving relief to Devas would further perpetuate the fraud.
\"The facts of the present case are nothing short of peculiar. Devas has an arbitral award amounting to USD 562.5 million along with interest and costs, in its favour. While the arbitral award was published on 14.09.2015, there have been two charge sheets filed by the CBI against Devas and other individuals alleging criminal conspiracy, fraud and other corrupt practices on 11.08.2016 and 08.01.2019 and the investigation regarding the same is ongoing,\" observed the court.
\"It would be against the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to permit Devas to reap the benefits of the ICC Award, and permitting Devas to do so would amount to this court perpetuating the fraud,\" it added.
In August last year, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva had allowed the petition filed by Antrix under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking setting aside of the arbitral award passed on September 14, 2005 by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce<\/a> (ICC) which had allowed the claim of Devas Multimedia Private Limited.
The single judge had held that the impugned award suffered from \"patent illegalities and fraud and is in conflict with the Public Policy of India\".
Antrix is a central public sector enterprise and is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of products and services of the Indian Space Research Organisation<\/a> (ISRO) to national and international customers.
Devas is a limited liability company incorporated in December 2004.
Antrix and Devas had entered into a contract on January 28, 2005 for the lease of Space Segment Capacity on ISRO\/ Antrix S-band Spacecraft. It provided for the lease to Devas of transponders on satellite GSAT-6, referred to in the contract as Primary Satellite 1 or PS1.
It also contained an option for Devas to lease transponders on a second satellite, GSAT-6A, referred to in the contract as Primary Satellite 2 or PS2. 13. The contract was executed between Antrix and Devas only and neither the Department of Space nor ISRO or any other government agency was a party to the contract.
Antrix had notified Devas in February 2011 that the contract was terminated, which the latter refused to accept and claimed damages by initiating arbitration proceedings.
The arbitral tribunal, while passing the award in 2015, had 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 due to Antrix's repudiation of the agreement.
The tribunal had directed Antrix to pay USD 562.2 million to Devas besides interest.
The single judge had said the findings on fraud returned by the Supreme Court in its January 2022 judgement clearly establish that \"award contravenes the fundamental policy of Indian law being in conflict with the most basic notions of justice and is also contrary to the national economic interest having also violated the 'FIPB Policies' and the provisions of 'FEMA' and 'PMLA' and thus antithetical to the fundamental policy of Indian law\".
Antrix had earlier sought winding up of Devas before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging that Devas was formed for a fraudulent and unlawful purpose and its affairs had been conducted in a fraudulent manner. The NCLT had allowed winding up of Devas which was then challenged by the company and Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt Ltd before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
In September, 2021, NCLAT dismissed both the appeals and the orders were then challenged before the Supreme Court which also dismissed the appeals on January 17 this year.
Since the order of winding up of Devas has been upheld until the Supreme Court, Devas was represented in the high court proceedings by the official liquidator.<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":98686127,"title":"OneWeb to complete 1st-gen LEO constellation with launch of 36 satellites from India on March 26","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/portal-in-portal\/satcom\/oneweb-to-complete-1st-gen-leo-constellation-with-launch-of-36-satellites-from-india-on-march-26\/98686127","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"portal-in-portal\/satcom"}],"related_content":[],"msid":98745801,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Delhi HC upholds order setting aside award asking Antrix to pay USD 562 million to Devas","synopsis":"\"Such is the extent of the fraud that it permeates through every agreement, transaction or award entered into by Devas. The fraud propagated by Devas is not only against Respondent No. 1 (Antrix), but against the State as a whole, inasmuch as it attempts to obtain monetary benefits from the State itself, by attempting to enforce an arbitral award, which itself is arising out of fraud. A fraud of such scale would certainly render the award to be in conflict with the public policy of India,\" said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad.","titleseo":"portal-in-portal\/satcom\/delhi-hc-upholds-order-setting-aside-award-asking-antrix-to-pay-usd-562-million-to-devas","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":158,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":647000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"PTI","artdate":"2023-03-18 07:59:41","lastupd":"2023-03-18 08:02:36","breadcrumbTags":["Antrix","international chamber of commerce","satcom","Antrix Corporation","Antrix Devas case","ISRO","indian space research organisation","devas multimedia"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"portal-in-portal\/satcom\/delhi-hc-upholds-order-setting-aside-award-asking-antrix-to-pay-usd-562-million-to-devas"}}" data-authors="[" "]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2023-03-18" data-index="article_1">
- 卫星通信
- 5分钟读
德里HC维护订单留出奖项要求Antrix支付5.62亿美元提婆
“这种欺诈行为的程度,它渗透到每一个协议,事务或奖进入提婆。提婆的欺诈传播不仅是对被调查者1号(Antrix),但对国家作为一个整体,因为它试图获取货币受益于国家本身,试图强制执行仲裁裁决,本身引起的欺诈行为。这种规模的欺诈肯定会呈现奖:在与印度的公共政策冲突,”法官说,也包括司法Subramonium Prasad。
读到
法院指出,最高法院在处理相关案件的实体,本身认为提婆成立出于欺诈目的及其事务以欺诈的方式进行的,因此,该协议,从目前的仲裁出现,欺诈的产物。
“这种欺诈行为的程度,它渗透到每一个协议,事务或奖进入提婆。提婆的欺诈传播不仅是对被调查者1号(Antrix),但对国家作为一个整体,因为它试图获得货币受益于国家本身,试图强制执行仲裁裁决,本身引起的欺诈行为。这种规模的欺诈肯定会呈现奖:在与印度的公共政策冲突,”法官说,也包括司法Subramonium Prasad。
法院认为没有任性的决定单个法官当它留出奖,从而挑战他的结论应该失败,给提婆将进一步延续欺诈救济。
“目前案件的事实是独特的。提婆有仲裁裁决总计5.625亿美元的利息和费用,对其有利。仲裁裁决14.09.2015上发布的时候,有两个费用表提交的英国工业联合会与提婆和其他个人指控犯罪阴谋、欺诈和其他腐败行为11.08.2016 08.01.2019和调查关于同一正在进行,”观察到法院。
“这将是对正义的原则,公平和良心允许提婆获得国际刑事法庭裁决的好处,并允许提婆将法院存在欺诈,”它补充道。
去年8月,正义(Sanjeev Sachdeva允许提交的请愿书Antrix仲裁和调解法案寻求留出的仲裁裁决通过9月14日,2005年由仲裁法庭构成国际商会(ICC)允许索赔的提婆多媒体私人有限。
单一法官认为奖遭受打击“专利违法行为和欺诈,在与印度的公共政策冲突”。
Antrix中央公共部门企业和从事业务的营销和销售的产品和服务印度空间研究组织(ISRO)国内和国际客户。
提婆是一个有限责任公司成立于2004年12月。
Antrix和提婆已经进入合同1月28日,2005年的租赁空间段能力ISRO / Antrix s波段飞船。它提供租赁提婆的卫星转发器GSAT-6,指合同中作为主要卫星1或PS1。
它还包含一个选项提婆在第二个卫星转发器租赁,GSAT-6A,将合同中称为初级卫星2或PS2。13。Antrix和提婆只之间的合同执行部门的空间和ISRO或任何其他政府机构是一个合同。
Antrix已经通知提婆2011年2月,合同终止,后者拒绝接受,并声称损害的启动仲裁程序。
仲裁法庭,而通过奖在2015年举行,终止合同的Antrix错误否定合同和相应合同第七条(b)不限制提婆的损害赔偿权利,它遭受了由于Antrix协议的否定。
法庭所吩咐Antrix向提婆除了支付5.622亿美元利息。
单一法官说,这一发现欺诈最高法院在其2022年1月返回的判断显然证明”奖违反印度法律的基本政策与最基本的正义的观念相冲突,也与国家经济利益也违反了“FIPB政策”和“联邦应急管理局”和“PMLA”的规定,因此印度法律的基本政策”的对立面。
Antrix此前寻求结束前的提婆国家公司法法庭(NCLT)称,提婆成立诈骗和非法目的及其事务一直以欺诈的方式进行的。NCLT使绕组的提婆当时受到公司和提婆员工毛里求斯Pvt Ltd之前国家公司法上诉法庭(NCLAT)。
2021年9月,NCLAT驳回上诉,最高法院前的订单然后挑战也驳回了上诉今年1月17日。
由于绕组的顺序提婆一直坚持,直到最高法院,提婆在高等法院诉讼的代表是官方的清算人。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动