What is the story of the Antrix-Devas deal?

What was the deal?

In 2005, Antrix, a commercial and marketing arm of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) had signed a satellite deal with Devas Multimedia. According to the contract, Antrix was to build and operate two satellites and using the transponder capacity of those two satellites, Devas was to provide multimedia services to mobile subscribers in India.

What went wrong?

The Manmohan Singh government in 2011 terminated the contract after allegations emerged that the deal included “quid pro quo” between Antrix officials and Devas.

Miffed by the termination of the contract, Devas foreign investors initiated the long-drawn battle that was fought at multiple forums. The company approached the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and in 2015, an arbitral tribunal found that the termination of the contract was wrong. The tribunal directed Antrix to pay $562.2 million to Devas, along with interest.

But India held its ground. It maintained that the deal was cancelled in view of increasing demand for the S-band satellite spectrum for national security purposes. Apart from ICC, Devas also initiated claims against India under “Bilateral Investment Treaties,” where both the DT Tribunal and India-Mauritius BIT tribunal ruled in the favour of Devas investors and ordered them to pay fines.

The fightback

Last year, Antrix moved the National Company Law Tribunal seeking winding up of Devas on grounds that the company was set up on "fraudulent motives". The NCLT ruled in favour of Antrix and ordered the liquidation of Devas. The verdict was challenged at NCLAT, which upheld the NCLT order. The battle then moved to the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, the apex court upheld the NCLAT verdict, ordering the liquidation of Devas.

Antrix also challenged the ICC verdict in Delhi high court. Setting aside the tribunal's order recently, the Delhi high court observed that the reasoning of the tribunal is self-contradictory and the award "suffers from patent illegalities and fraud and is in conflict with the public policy of India.”