Devas-Antrix: Ninth Circuit Upholds US Confirmation of Award, but India’s Final Set-Aside Returns to District Court

ThisisNews Network

New Delhi/San Fransisco: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a US district court’s confirmation of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitral award in favour of Devas Multimedia Private Limited against Antrix Corporation Ltd., but has left open a potentially decisive question: what effect should be given in the United States to the final setting aside of the award by Indian courts?

In a memorandum filed on August 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had not erred in confirming the ICC award under the New York Convention. At the same time, the appellate court declined to decide whether the subsequent final setting aside of the award by Indian courts makes the award unenforceable in the United States. It directed Antrix to place the Indian court decisions before the US district court for consideration.

The ruling is therefore not an unqualified victory for Devas. It affirms the earlier US confirmation of the award, but leaves the ultimate consequences of the Indian courts’ final annulment of that award to the district court.

The dispute goes back to the 2005 Devas-Antrix agreement

The controversy arose from an agreement dated January 28, 2005, under which Antrix, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), agreed to lease S-band satellite capacity to Devas Multimedia for a proposed satellite-based multimedia service.

Devas had been incorporated on December 17, 2004. The agreement envisaged the leasing by Antrix of transponder capacity on an ISRO satellite for Devas’s proposed S-DMB service, including audio, video and interactive information services to mobile and other receivers across India.

The agreement was terminated by Antrix on February 25, 2011, after the Government of India took a policy decision not to provide orbital slots in the S-band for commercial activities. Devas disputed the termination and ultimately commenced ICC arbitration against Antrix on July 1, 2011.

On September 14, 2015, the ICC arbitral tribunal, comprising former Chief Justice of India Adarsh Sein Anand, V.V. Veeder and Michael Pryles, awarded Devas USD 562.5 million, together with interest and costs, for what it held to be wrongful repudiation of the agreement.

Indian courts subsequently set aside the award

The dispute, however, acquired an entirely different dimension after proceedings in India.

During the arbitration proceedings, the CBI had registered an FIR in March 2015 alleging criminal conspiracy, criminal misconduct, cheating and other corrupt practices involving Devas and its officers. Chargesheets followed in 2016 and 2019.

Antrix subsequently sought to challenge the ICC award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Supreme Court transferred the challenge from Bengaluru to the Delhi High Court in November 2020 and stayed the award in the interim.

Meanwhile, Antrix initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal seeking winding up of Devas on the ground that the company had been incorporated for fraudulent and unlawful purposes and that its affairs were being conducted fraudulently.

The NCLT ordered the winding up of Devas on May 25, 2021. The NCLAT upheld the order on September 8, 2021, and the Supreme Court, in its judgment of January 17, 2022, dismissed the challenge to the winding-up order.

The Supreme Court held that the commercial relationship between Antrix and Devas was a product of fraud and observed that the arbitral award and other consequences flowing from that relationship were consequently tainted by fraud. It further held that allowing Devas and its shareholders to benefit from such a transaction would be contrary to public policy and basic notions of morality and justice.

Against that background, the Delhi High Court on August 29, 2022 set aside the ICC award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on grounds including fraud, patent illegality and conflict with the public policy of India.

The decision was challenged in appeal. On March 17, 2023, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited.

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had committed no error in setting aside the ICC award on the ground of fraud and conflict with public policy. It further observed that the Supreme Court had already held that the commercial relationship between Devas and Antrix was a product of fraud and that the Devas agreement, the ICC award and disputes arising from the transaction were consequently tainted by fraud.

The Supreme Court of India subsequently denied review on October 6, 2023, making the setting aside of the award final. The Ninth Circuit expressly records this sequence in its August 12, 2026 memorandum.

Ninth Circuit: Indian annulment must now be considered

It is against this backdrop that the latest US ruling assumes significance.

Antrix argued before the Ninth Circuit that the fact that Indian courts had finally set aside the award meant that the award could no longer be enforced in the United States.

The Ninth Circuit did not decide that issue itself.

The court noted that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention provides that recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused where the award has been set aside by a competent authority in the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made.

The Ninth Circuit stressed that the use of the word “may” makes refusal discretionary and that determining whether an award that has been set aside should nevertheless be enforced requires a fact-intensive analysis best undertaken by the district court in the first instance.

Consequently, the appellate court directed that Antrix present the final Indian court decisions to the US district court and seek appropriate relief from the judgment in light of the changed circumstances.

This leaves open an important question in the US enforcement proceedings: whether an arbitral award that has been finally set aside by the courts of the seat of arbitration can continue to be enforced in the United States in the circumstances of this case.

Ninth Circuit rejects shareholders’ independent enforcement standing

The appellate court also delivered an important ruling on who can seek enforcement of the US judgment.

Three Mauritian companies holding shares in Devas—CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Ltd. and Telcom Devas Mauritius Ltd.—had sought to register and enforce the judgment.

The Ninth Circuit held that they lacked standing to do so independently. Since Devas is incorporated in India, the court applied Indian law and found that the shareholder intervenors did not have a right to pursue Devas’s claims directly. The court also noted that their interest in Devas’s residual assets would arise only upon dissolution, and Devas had not been dissolved when they sought registration of the judgment.

The appellate court, however, reached a different conclusion regarding Devas Multimedia America Inc. (DMAI).

DMAI has a Collection Services Agreement with Devas requiring it to take actions necessary to protect, defend and enforce the award. The Ninth Circuit held that this contractual arrangement gave DMAI a legal right to seek registration of the judgment.

The court consequently upheld registration of the judgment in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the district court had found identifiable Antrix assets, while declining to authorize nationwide registration in the absence of stronger evidence of Antrix assets throughout the United States.

A mixed ruling—with the crucial issue still alive

The August 12 ruling is therefore a mixed decision.

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the US district court’s original confirmation of the ICC award under the New York Convention. But it has not held that the award remains enforceable in the United States notwithstanding its final setting aside by Indian courts.

Instead, the appellate court has sent that question back to the US district court, where Antrix can rely on the final Indian judicial decisions—including the Supreme Court’s findings concerning fraud and the Delhi High Court’s setting aside of the award.

The Ninth Circuit concluded its memorandum: “AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and VACATED in part.”

There is also an important procedural qualification: the Ninth Circuit states that its memorandum disposition “is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.”

The next significant phase of the long-running Devas-Antrix dispute will therefore be before the US district court, where the impact of India’s final judicial annulment of the award will have to be considered.