In a significant ruling, the United States Supreme Court has allowed Mauritius-based CC/Devas and Bengaluru-based Devas Multimedia to proceed with their \$1.29 billion arbitral award enforcement suit against India’s Antrix Corporation in US courts — without needing to establish that Antrix had “minimum contacts” with the United States.
The Court’s decision overturned a 2023 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing Antrix’s insufficient connections to the US under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Antrix is the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and is wholly owned by the Indian government.
Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the majority opinion, clarified that the FSIA “makes clear that when an immunity exception applies and service has been made in accordance with the Act, personal jurisdiction exists.” He emphasized that requiring plaintiffs to prove minimum contacts “would contradict Congress’s carefully structured statutory scheme.”
The FSIA provides a legal framework for suing foreign sovereigns in US courts. One key provision — the “commercial activity” exception — lifts sovereign immunity when foreign state conduct has a “direct effect” in the US. Courts have interpreted “direct effect” as an immediate and foreseeable consequence without intervening factors, such as unpaid dues owed to a US bank.
In this case, the plaintiffs sought to enforce a 2015 arbitral award granted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which awarded Devas \$562.5 million in damages after the Indian government cancelled a 2005 satellite transponder agreement. The agreement had enabled Devas to offer multimedia services across India using ISRO’s S-band spectrum. The government, however, scrapped the deal in 2011, citing national security concerns.
While foreign investors in Devas also won multiple arbitration awards under bilateral investment treaties, the Indian government and Antrix have consistently claimed that the original deal was fraudulent. Indian courts later supported this claim — with the National Company Law Tribunal ordering Devas’ liquidation in 2021 and the Supreme Court of India upholding the order in 2022, calling Devas “a sham entity.”
In parallel, the Delhi High Court set aside the ICC arbitral award in 2022 on grounds of “patent illegality, fraud, and conflict with public policy,” stating that enforcing such an award would “encourage fraud.”
Despite this, Devas sought to enforce the award in multiple jurisdictions, including the US. The District Court initially allowed it, but the Ninth Circuit overturned it, stating Antrix lacked sufficient ties to the US.
The Supreme Court has now reversed that stance, underscoring that FSIA itself builds in constitutional safeguards through its exceptions: “Imposing an additional constitutional test would contradict Congress’s carefully structured statutory scheme,” Justice Alito noted.
However, the Court refrained from ruling on other defenses raised by Antrix — including the enforceability of an award annulled by Indian courts, or whether the case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. These issues were remanded back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration.
The ruling clarifies the scope of US jurisdiction in cases involving foreign sovereigns and strengthens the enforcement prospects of arbitral awards — even when the underlying disputes involve sovereign entities and have been quashed in their home jurisdictions.
Case: Devas Mauritius Limited vs Antrix Corporation – Available on LAWFYI.IO
