A US appeals court has upheld the confirmation of a $562.5 million arbitration award against Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), in the long-running dispute with Devas Multimedia. The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirms that US courts have jurisdiction to consider enforcement of the foreign arbitral award, although a separate issue concerning the award’s subsequent annulment by Indian courts remains unresolved.
The dispute dates back to a 2005 satellite agreement between Antrix and Devas. Antrix agreed to build, launch and operate two satellites and lease S-band spectrum to Devas for telecommunications services. After the Indian government decided that the spectrum was required for other purposes, Antrix terminated the agreement in 2011. An international arbitration tribunal later ruled in favour of Devas and awarded it $562.5 million in damages.
Ninth Circuit Upholds US Jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit’s latest decision is significant because it addresses whether a US court can exercise jurisdiction over Antrix, an entity owned by the Indian government.
The appeals court concluded that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception provides the necessary basis for jurisdiction when the relevant requirements are met.
The court also rejected Antrix’s argument that the dispute needed a separate commercial connection with the United States.
| Key Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Parties | Devas Multimedia and Antrix Corporation |
| Award | $562.5 million plus interest |
| Arbitration | ICC arbitration |
| Arbitration award | September 14, 2015 |
| US court | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Original US district court | Western District of Washington |
| Indian court status | Award subsequently annulled in India |
| Latest US ruling | Confirmation upheld |
| Remaining issue | Effect of Indian annulment |
The ruling means that the US proceedings can continue despite the fact that Indian courts subsequently set aside the original arbitration award.
What Was the Devas-Antrix Dispute?
The dispute originated from an agreement signed on January 28, 2005.
Under the agreement, Antrix was to provide satellite capacity and lease 70 MHz of S-band spectrum to Devas.
Devas planned to use the satellite infrastructure for telecommunications and multimedia services.
Original Agreement
Antrix
↓
Build and launch satellites
+
Provide satellite capacity
+
Lease S-band spectrum
↓
Devas
↓
Commercial telecommunications services
The arrangement later collapsed after the Indian government decided that the S-band spectrum was needed for other purposes.
Antrix Terminated the Agreement in 2011
On February 25, 2011, Antrix informed Devas that it was terminating the agreement.
The company cited a government policy decision under which the relevant orbital spectrum could not be made available for commercial activities.
Devas challenged the termination and initiated arbitration.
Dispute Timeline
2005
↓
Agreement signed
↓
2011
↓
Antrix terminates agreement
↓
2011
↓
Devas begins arbitration
↓
2015
↓
ICC tribunal awards $562.5 million
↓
2018
↓
Devas seeks US enforcement
↓
2020
↓
US district court confirms award
↓
2025
↓
US Supreme Court addresses jurisdiction
↓
2026
↓
Ninth Circuit upholds confirmation
The dispute has therefore continued for more than 15 years.
ICC Tribunal Awarded Devas $562.5 Million
Devas commenced arbitration in July 2011.
On September 14, 2015, a three-member International Chamber of Commerce tribunal concluded that Antrix had wrongfully repudiated the agreement.
The tribunal awarded Devas $562.5 million in damages.
The award also became the subject of enforcement proceedings in several jurisdictions.
Devas Sought Enforcement in the United States
In 2018, Devas approached the US District Court for the Western District of Washington to have the arbitration award recognized and enforced.
The district court confirmed the award in October 2020.
It subsequently entered a judgment of approximately $1.29 billion, including interest and other amounts associated with the award.
US Enforcement Process
ICC arbitration
↓
$562.5 million award
↓
Devas seeks US recognition
↓
US district court confirms award
↓
Judgment exceeds $1 billion with interest
↓
Antrix appeals
↓
Ninth Circuit proceedings
The latest appellate ruling deals primarily with jurisdiction and the legal effect of the Indian annulment.
US Supreme Court Had Already Addressed Jurisdiction
The case reached the US Supreme Court before returning to the Ninth Circuit.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that personal jurisdiction over a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exists when an applicable immunity exception applies and service is properly made.
The Supreme Court rejected the idea that an additional traditional “minimum contacts” requirement had to be established beyond the requirements of the FSIA.
This ruling sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided
The appeals court considered several arguments raised by Antrix.
It held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception supplied subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court also concluded that personal jurisdiction over Antrix was reasonable.
Finally, it rejected the argument that the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.
Three Major Findings
FSIA arbitration exception
↓
US jurisdiction exists
+
Personal jurisdiction
↓
Reasonable
+
Forum non conveniens
↓
Does not require dismissal
The ruling therefore allows the US enforcement proceedings to continue.
Why the New York Convention Matters
The arbitration award is governed by an international framework that includes the New York Convention.
The convention establishes rules for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
The United States and India are both parties to the convention.
The Ninth Circuit held that the convention’s enforcement framework supports US jurisdiction in this case.
Court Rejects Forum Non Conveniens Argument
Antrix argued that the dispute was fundamentally connected to India and should therefore be dealt with in Indian courts.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument in the context of confirming a foreign arbitral award.
The court said that the New York Convention provides specific grounds on which enforcement can be refused and that general inconvenience of the forum is not an additional ground.
Antrix’s Argument
Dispute occurred primarily in India
↓
Agreement executed in India
↓
Indian courts involved
↓
US court should decline jurisdiction
Ninth Circuit’s View
Foreign arbitration award
↓
New York Convention applies
↓
US courts can confirm award
↓
Forum non conveniens does not independently block confirmation
This distinction is important for international arbitration disputes involving state-owned entities.
Indian Courts Later Annulled the Award
The US proceedings are complicated by developments in India.
In August 2022, the Delhi High Court set aside the $562.5 million arbitration award.
The court held that the award suffered from serious legal defects and was contrary to India’s public policy.
The Delhi High Court’s decision was subsequently upheld by its division bench in March 2023.
Devas challenged the Indian court decisions.
Ninth Circuit Did Not Resolve the Indian Annulment Issue
The latest US ruling does not finally determine what effect the Indian annulment should have on enforcement in the United States.
Instead, the Ninth Circuit sent that issue back to the US district court.
This means the confirmation of the award has been upheld for jurisdictional purposes, but the district court must now consider whether the subsequent annulment in India affects the ability to enforce the award in the US.
Current Legal Position
ICC award
↓
$562.5 million
↓
Indian courts annul award
BUT
↓
US courts confirm award
↓
Ninth Circuit upholds US jurisdiction
↓
District court must examine Indian annulment
↓
Enforcement issue remains open
This creates a complex cross-border legal situation.
The US Judgment Is Larger Than the Original Award
Although the arbitration tribunal awarded $562.5 million, the US district court later entered a judgment of approximately $1.29 billion.
The larger amount reflects interest and other amounts that accumulated during the lengthy enforcement process.
This means the financial stakes in the dispute have grown substantially since the original arbitration award.
Antrix Is a Government-Owned Entity
Antrix is the commercial arm associated with India’s Department of Space and ISRO.
Its ownership structure means the case involves not only a commercial dispute but also questions surrounding the jurisdiction of foreign courts over an entity connected to the Indian government.
The FSIA provides specific rules governing lawsuits against foreign states and state-linked entities in US courts.
The Case Has Global Implications
The dispute is being closely watched because it involves the enforcement of international arbitration awards against a state-owned company.
The outcome could have implications for companies that enter commercial agreements with government-owned entities.
It also highlights the importance of carefully drafted arbitration clauses and enforcement strategies.
Cross-Border Contract
Private company
↓
Government-owned company
↓
International contract
↓
Arbitration clause
↓
International award
↓
Multiple-country enforcement
↓
Potential legal conflicts
The Devas case illustrates how disputes can continue across several jurisdictions even after an arbitral tribunal has issued a final award.
India and US Courts Have Taken Different Positions
The case demonstrates a major difference between the proceedings in India and the United States.
Indian courts have annulled the award, while US courts have confirmed it.
The Ninth Circuit has now left the question of how the Indian annulment affects US enforcement to the district court.
This does not mean the US court has ignored the Indian decisions. Rather, the legal question is whether the annulment provides a valid basis under the applicable international enforcement framework to prevent execution of the US judgment.
Devas Has Sought Assets Outside India
Devas and entities associated with the award have pursued enforcement in jurisdictions outside India.
This is important because international arbitration creditors often seek assets located in countries where a judgment or award can be recognized.
The US proceedings are particularly important because they could potentially provide access to commercial assets of Antrix located within the United States.
The Case Has Continued for More Than a Decade
The length of the dispute demonstrates the complexity of international arbitration enforcement.
A commercial agreement signed in 2005 eventually produced:
- Contract termination in 2011
- Arbitration proceedings
- A $562.5 million award in 2015
- US enforcement proceedings
- A US judgment exceeding $1 billion
- Indian annulment proceedings
- US Supreme Court litigation
- A renewed Ninth Circuit appeal
- Further district court proceedings in 2026
The case remains unresolved despite more than 15 years of litigation.
What It Means for Antrix
For Antrix, the Ninth Circuit ruling means the US enforcement case cannot be dismissed simply because the dispute occurred primarily outside the United States.
The company will now need to continue addressing the separate question of whether the Indian annulment prevents enforcement of the award in the US.
The financial exposure could remain substantial if the US district court ultimately permits enforcement.
What It Means for Devas
For Devas, the ruling is an important procedural victory.
The company has succeeded in preserving the US court’s jurisdiction and the confirmation of the arbitration award.
However, the company still needs to overcome the issue created by the Indian annulment.
The next stage before the US district court will therefore be critical.
What It Means for International Arbitration
The ruling reinforces the importance of international arbitration mechanisms.
Companies frequently use arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes because awards can potentially be enforced in multiple jurisdictions.
The case demonstrates, however, that enforcement can become complicated when one country’s courts subsequently annul an award.
What It Means for Government-Owned Companies
State-owned and government-linked companies entering international commercial agreements may face enforcement proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.
The case demonstrates that government ownership does not necessarily provide blanket protection from arbitration enforcement proceedings.
The applicable sovereign-immunity laws and international treaties remain critical.
What It Means for Indian Companies
Indian companies involved in international contracts may also take lessons from the dispute.
Carefully drafted arbitration clauses, jurisdiction provisions and enforcement strategies can reduce uncertainty when disputes arise.
Companies should consider not only where arbitration will take place but also where an eventual award could need to be enforced.
What Investors Should Watch
Investors and businesses should monitor:
- The next US district court proceedings
- The effect of India’s annulment decision
- Any further appeals
- Potential asset-enforcement actions
- Interest accumulation on the judgment
- Proceedings involving Devas shareholders
- International enforcement proceedings
- Any settlement discussions
The next US district court decision could determine the practical significance of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Original arbitration award | $562.5 million |
| Arbitration body | International Chamber of Commerce |
| Award date | September 14, 2015 |
| Original agreement | January 28, 2005 |
| Agreement terminated | February 25, 2011 |
| US district court | Western District of Washington |
| US judgment | About $1.29 billion |
| Indian annulment | August 2022 |
| Delhi HC division bench | March 2023 |
| US Supreme Court ruling | June 2025 |
| Latest US court | Ninth Circuit |
| Latest development | US confirmation upheld |
| Remaining issue | Effect of Indian annulment |
Infographic: Devas-Antrix Legal Battle
2005
↓
ANTRIX + DEVAS
SATELLITE AGREEMENT
↓
2011
ANTRIX TERMINATES AGREEMENT
↓
DEVAS
↓
ICC ARBITRATION
↓
2015
$562.5 MILLION AWARD
↓
2018
DEVAS SEEKS US ENFORCEMENT
↓
2020
US DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMS AWARD
↓
$1.29 BILLION JUDGMENT
↓
2022
INDIAN COURT ANNULS AWARD
↓
2023
DELHI HC DIVISION BENCH UPHOLDS ANNULMENT
↓
2025
US SUPREME COURT
UPHOLDS FSIA JURISDICTION FRAMEWORK
↓
2026
NINTH CIRCUIT
UPHOLDS US JURISDICTION
+
CONFIRMATION OF AWARD
↓
US DISTRICT COURT
TO CONSIDER EFFECT OF
INDIAN ANNULMENT
The Bigger Picture
The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a significant development in one of India’s longest-running international arbitration disputes. The court has upheld the US jurisdiction to confirm the $562.5 million Devas award against Antrix, despite the dispute’s strong connection to India and Antrix’s status as an Indian government-owned entity. The ruling reinforces the ability of US courts to consider enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the New York Convention.
However, the ruling does not end the dispute. Indian courts have already annulled the arbitration award, and the Ninth Circuit has directed the US district court to consider what effect that annulment should have on enforcement in the United States. The US district court’s next decision could therefore be more important for the ultimate financial outcome than the latest jurisdictional ruling.
Looking Ahead
The immediate focus will shift back to the US district court, which must determine whether the Indian annulment affects the enforceability of the award in the United States. Devas has secured an important procedural victory by preserving US jurisdiction and the confirmation of the award, but it still faces the legal hurdle created by the decisions of Indian courts. Antrix, meanwhile, can continue challenging enforcement based on the subsequent annulment.
Over the longer term, the Devas-Antrix dispute could become an important reference point for international arbitration involving government-owned companies. It highlights the challenges that arise when arbitration awards move across jurisdictions and one country’s courts set aside an award that another country’s courts have already confirmed. The case also underscores why international businesses need to consider enforcement jurisdictions, sovereign-immunity rules and the consequences of potential court challenges when structuring cross-border agreements.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
