decisions in those cases such as Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. V. Antrix Corporation
Limited3 wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court confrmed ... with which the Learned
Single Judge agreed, in the case of Antrix , has been found to be an incorrect view by
the Supreme Court
Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs Antrix Corporation Limited on 28 February, 2017
Author: S.Muralidhar
Bench: S.Muralidhar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ... Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Omar Ahmad, Advocate.
versus
ANTRIX CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Saket
miserably
failed to discharge.
18. In Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs. Antrix Corporation
Limited , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7229, this Court has held that ... paragraph is as follows :
"59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corpn.
Ltd. [Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia
tribunal. To bolster the
said submission, heavy reliance has been placed on Antrix
Corporation Limited v. Devas Multimedia Private
Limited4 .
(g) The authority relied ... said purpose, as stated hereinbefore, he
36
has placed heavy reliance upon Antrix Corporation Limited
(supra). In the said case, the two-Judge Bench referred
High Courts, including judgment of Delhi
High Court in the case of Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas
Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 2018 SCC OnLine ... upon certain observations made in the aforesaid
judgment in the case of Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas
Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the Delhi High
been excluded therefore.
Accordingly, question (ii) is also answered in favour of
Antrix...”
7/17
http://www.judis ... view of the Delhi High Court in Antrix
Corporation Ltd. (supra), which followed judgments of
the Bombay High Court, does not commend itself
Soma (supra) and the view expressed by
the Delhi High Court in Antrix Corpn. Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia
(P) Ltd.21 was overruled observing that ... reads as under:
“59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corpn.
Ltd. that Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would
be rendered ineffective
finding recorded thus:
“61. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix
Corporation Ltd. (supra) that Section 42 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996 would be rendered
Debdas Routh & Anr. , 2017 SCC
OnLine Cal 16379 and Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia
Pvt. Ltd., passed in FAO(OS)(COMM.) 67/2017
Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd vs Rajasthali Resorts And Studios Limited on 17 January, 2023
Author
