Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Devas Multimedia Private Limited (‗Devas') has filed this petition against Antrix Corporation Ltd. (‗Antrix') under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‗Act') for directions to Antrix to secure the amount awarded in favour of Devas by an Award of the Arbitral Tribunal (‗AT') dated 14th September, 2015 together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of full payment, by furnishing a Bank Guarantee (‗BG'), or attaching the bank accounts, receivables, other movable or immovable assets of Antrix.

7. Thus, the above arbitration clause made it clear that the seat of arbitration would be at New Delhi in India. Significantly, there is no 'jurisdiction' clause in the Agreement. Article 19 stated that the Agreement was subject to and had to be construed in accordance with the laws of India.

8. On 17th February, 2011, a decision was taken by the Cabinet Committee on Security (‗CCS') to deny orbital slot in S-band to Antrix for any commercial activities and to direct annulment of the Agreement dated 28 th January, 2005, which was communicated to Antrix vide letter dated 23 rd February, 2011. Consequently, a letter of termination was issued by Antrix to Devas on 25th February, 2011. On 29th June, 2011, Devas approached the International Chambers of Commerce (ICC), Paris with a ‗Request for Arbitration'. Antrix was notified by the ICC of the said request on 5th July, 2011. In the said letter, the ICC stated that a portion of the above arbitration clause (Article 20) "constitutes a substantial departure from the ICC Rules"

19. On 19th November, 2015, Antrix filed an application in the Bangalore City Civil Court under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Award dated 14th September, 2015. In the said petition, Devas filed an application being AS No. 174/2015 contending that the City Civil Court at Bangalore had no jurisdiction to entertain that application. The said application is stated to be pending in that Court along with the earlier petition i.e., AA No. 483/2011 filed by Antrix under Section 9 of the Act.

20. The developments since then are that on 8th February, 2016, Antrix received intimation of an order of a Court in Paris, France for enforcement of the aforementioned Award. The second development was that on 11 th August, 2016, based on an investigation commenced in 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‗CBI') filed a charge-sheet before the Special Court for CBI Cases, New Delhi in which it concluded that the Agreement dated 28th January, 2005 between Antrix and Devas was a result of criminal conspiracy between Devas and certain officials with a view to cause loss to Antrix. It is stated that proceedings have already been launched against Devas for violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The third development is that Devas filed IA No. 2 in the pending AA No.483/2011 in the City Civil Court at Bangalore objecting to the jurisdiction of that Court. It is stated that the arguments in the said application have been heard piecemeal between 24th September, 2016 and 26th November, 2016. The fourth event is that on 29th November, 2016, an application was filed by Antrix in the City Civil Court at Bangalore for bringing on record the subsequent developments including the filing of the charge-sheet by the CBI and the enforcement proceedings filed by Devas in Paris.

(iv) It is reiterated that the Court at Bangalore does not have the ‗subject matter jurisdiction' since it does not have the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the application. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. World Park Hotels (India) Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (Supp) Arb LR 231 (Del) and the decision dated 16th September, 2016 in Execution Petition No. 443/2014 (GEA EGI Contracting v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.).

(v) Antrix has been indulging in forum shopping. In its petition under Section 11 of the Act before the Supreme Court, Antrix itself conceded that the seat of arbitration was in Delhi; that the cause of action only arose at Delhi and that the competent Court for the purposes of Section 2 (1) (e) was Delhi. Antrix further conceded that the Award had its genesis in the policy decision of the Government taken in Delhi and that the cause of action wholly arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Having taken the above stand in the petition under Section 11 of the Act, Antrix was now estopped from contending to the contrary. Reliance is placed on the decision in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974) 1 SCC 242.