Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 MARCH 2017

Delhi HC Allows Devas To Seek Orders For Securing The USD 562.5 Million Award Against Antrix

Nishith Desai Associates
Explore more from Nishith Desai Associates

Allows Devas to seek interim measures for the purposes of securing the arbitral award despite Antrix having previously filed an arbitration petition in another court of concurrent jurisdiction

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Siddharth Ratho
Siddharth Ratho
Vyapak Desai
Vyapak Desai
Author LinkedIn connections

The Delhi High Court ("Court") in Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. ("Devas") vs. Antrix Corporation Ltd. ("Antrix")i

  • Allows Devas to seek interim measures for the purposes of securing the arbitral award despite Antrix having previously filed an arbitration petition in another court of concurrent jurisdiction
  • Adopts a purposive interpretation to give effect to the legislative intent behind Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act")
  • Holds that petitions must be 'valid' and the court which is approached in the first instance must be 'competent' to entertain and grant the reliefs prayed for in order to become the 'one stop' court for all subsequent proceedings

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Decree Execution Under Order XXI CPC – An In-depth Insight

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Section 35(3) BNSS Notice Is The Rule, Arrest An Exception For Offences Up To 7 Years: Supreme Court

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated and strengthened the safeguards governing arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is the rule in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Vaish Associates Advocates
Vaish Associates Advocates
Article

The Limitation Clock On Money Recovery: Understanding Article 113, Acknowledgment And Extension Under Indian Law

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants