Republic of India v CC/Devas arbitration ruling addresses complex jurisdictional challenges

On 9 July 2025, the High Court of Justice delivered a significant ruling in the arbitration dispute between the Republic of India and three Mauritian companies: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd, Telcom Devas Mauritius Ltd, and Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited. This complex case stems from a protracted legal battle originating in a 2005 commercial agreement between Devas Multimedia Private Limited and Antrix Corporation Limited, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation.

The contractual dispute traces back to 28 January 2005, when Devas secured rights to lease satellite capacity for broadcasting digital multimedia services. Antrix unilaterally terminated this agreement in 2011, citing force majeure circumstances. This termination prompted Devas to initiate ICC arbitration proceedings for breach of contract damages, ultimately securing a substantial award in 2015. Simultaneously, the Mauritian companies pursued arbitration against India under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty, alleging treaty breaches arising from the agreement's termination.

The legal landscape shifted dramatically when the Mauritian companies entered administration in 2023. This development created significant procedural complications, particularly regarding legitimate authority to represent the companies in ongoing arbitration proceedings. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, acting for the directors and shareholders, maintained their representative capacity, though this arrangement faced challenges from various stakeholders dissatisfied with the administrative process.

The case presented intricate questions concerning the application of Mauritian and English law, particularly regarding corporate representation in arbitration contexts. The court examined whether Mauritian law should govern determinations of legal counsel authority on behalf of the companies' interests in continuing arbitration proceedings. These jurisdictional questions highlighted the complex interplay between different legal systems within international arbitration frameworks.

Central to the proceedings were arguments regarding the arbitral tribunal's powers and whether India's arbitration claim should be stayed pending resolution of related legal issues. The court scrutinised not only jurisdictional authority within arbitration contexts but also fundamental procedural matters affecting the conduct of international arbitration involving insolvent entities.

Sir Nigel Teare's judgement affirmed Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's continued role as representative counsel for the Mauritian companies in arbitration matters. However, the court recognised that intervention requests from various parties, including the administrator, could create procedural difficulties, leading to subsequent applications for party joinder in the arbitration proceedings.

The ruling illuminates the sophisticated challenges arising when international arbitration intersects with insolvency proceedings and multiple jurisdictional frameworks. The decision addresses crucial questions about corporate representation during administration and the procedural mechanisms available to manage competing interests in complex international disputes.

This judgement establishes important precedents for handling arbitration claims involving insolvent entities, particularly regarding the delicate balance between preserving arbitration proceedings' integrity and accommodating insolvency law requirements. The case demonstrates how domestic legal procedures can significantly impact international arbitration conduct and outcomes.

The decision's implications extend beyond the immediate parties, offering guidance on managing jurisdictional conflicts in international arbitration contexts. As arbitration increasingly involves entities subject to insolvency proceedings, this ruling provides valuable clarity on procedural approaches to such complex scenarios.

The ongoing nature of these proceedings suggests further developments in how international arbitration tribunals and national courts coordinate their respective roles when insolvency complicates arbitration proceedings. The ultimate resolution of the underlying Devas-Antrix contractual dispute remains dependent on navigating these procedural complexities, with this judgement providing essential guidance for similar future cases involving the intersection of international arbitration and insolvency law.