Antrix shocked over global forum ruling in Devas case

The Paris-based ICC Tribunal, looking into an arbitration case between former partners Antrix Corporation, the marketing arm of ISRO; and Devas Multimedia Corporation, has ruled that Antrix must pay Devas a compensation of $672 million (around ₹4,435 crore) with interest for breach of their satellite contract, according to a statement issued by Devas on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the Paris-based global Court of Arbitration awarded Devas, a Bengaluru-based space technology firm, $562.5 million in damages, and additional interest, for cancelling a contract four years ago on grounds of national security. The global tribunal’s ruling is not yet binding on the Indian space agency, as Devas would require to get the ruling enforced by an Indian court. “With its award, we hope to move forward to concluding this dispute”, Devas chairman Larry Babbio said in the statement.

“Devas is hopeful that Antrix will now live up to its legal obligations and pay the award so that this dispute that arose during the prior government can be brought to a swift close, ” it added.

The award will come up for hearing in the Delhi High Court, which has to enforce it.

ISRO chairman A.S. Kiran Kumar declined to comment on the court’s ruling.

Under the deal signed in 2005, Antrix was to provide 70 MHz of the scarce S-Band wavelength to Devas for its digital multimedia services by leasing 90 per cent of the transponders in ISRO’s GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A satellites. Antrix is liable to pay damages of Dollars 672 million to the company.

The tribunal noted that Antrix had no legal justification for terminating the agreement.

The CCS had annulled the deal on the ground that it was not in the security interests of the country.

The decision came in the backdrop of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), which had pointed out that the allocation of telecom spectrum to telcos far below market price had caused a loss of Rs1,76,000 crore to the government (the 2G scam).

The ICC upheld Devas’ argument that the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal.