ICC Rules on Indian Space Arbitration Case


On Monday, Jul 25, 2016, a International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), during The Hague, ruled on an settlement box regarding to dual Indian space agencies, Antrix and Devas. The preference by a ICC resulted in an endowment of scarcely $1 billion in remuneration to Devas. The Indian supervision will seductiveness a arbitral award. The box involves Antrix, an Indian supervision space classification that provides services such as satellite launches for blurb space companies such as Devas, that specializes in satellite communications.

The ICC statute on a Indian space settlement box stems from Antrix’s (the Indian government) stop of a 2005 understanding to yield Devas with “70 MHz of a wanting S-Band wavelength” for a commercial/multimedia uses. Antrix concluded to “lease 90 per cent of a transponders in ISROs GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A satellites. However, India’s supervision argues that a preference to cancel a agreement was formed on confidence concerns that arose around consultations with a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

The ICC announced in a outcome that a stop of a contract, that radically stop Devas from regulating dual satellites, was “inequitable” and “unfair.” The judiciary continued to explain that in violation this contract, a “Indian supervision expropriated a investments of Devas’s unfamiliar shareholders . . . so creation it probable to compensate compensation.” Some of Devas shareholders are formed in a United States. The strange endowment to Devas was $672 million with annual seductiveness rate of 18 percent until a change is paid in full.

The Indian supervision argues that as a emperor state, it has a right to cancel blurb contracts that it believes enclose “irregularities or gaps in a demeanour in that they were inked.” It also stands by a concerns about confidence as were dynamic by a CCS. The Department of Space contends that even if they were probable for compensation, that volume would usually equal “40 percent of a value of a investment and a accurate quantum has not nonetheless been determined.”

While there seems to be justification and fashion ancillary a Indian government’s preference to mangle a contract, some indicate out that India simply lacked authorised illustration during a judiciary proceedings. In fact, India never sent a assignment for a three-member judiciary and rather simply petitioned a Supreme Court to start a apart settlement box opposite Devas, that failed. Additionally, Antrix unsuccessful to even uncover for record “held to plead breeze terms of reference.”

Devas claims a attribute between themselves and Antrix has struggled from a beginning. This new preference has validated a Court’s prior preference though there will be time for India’s supervision to residence other authorised issues when Devas petitions a Court to make a award.

This ICC statute on an settlement box regarding to India’s space programs will be monitored as a endowment routine continues. This month a ICC revised a Practice Note, that focused on augmenting inspection during a endowment routine as good as shortening fees compared with a mostly extensive process. This Practice Note was expelled only days before a ICC hold a 2016 array of informal Young Arbitration Forums (YAF) in Athens.

By Joel Wickwire


Forbes: India’s Possible $1 Billion Satellite, Spectrum Arbitration Loss and a value of ISDS Provisions

Herbert Smith Freehills Dispute Resolution: “We Will Pay for Delays” – ICC Clampdown on Its Award Scrutiny Process

The Hindu:  Antrix-Devas Deal: India to Appeal Against Hague Tribunal’s Verdict

The Hindu:  Tribunal Rules Against Indian Govt

The Hindu:  Setback during a Hague

International Chamber of Commerce:  Europe’s Young Arbitrators Convene in Athens

Image Courtesy Kordite’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License

ICC Rules on Indian Space Arbitration Case combined by Joel Wickwire on Jul 30, 2016
View all posts by Joel Wickwire →

Like this: