Supreme Court: What started as ‘DEVAS’ ultimately turned out to be ‘ASURAS’

Munmun Kaur

Published On: January 18, 2022 at 16:11 IST

The Supreme Court on January 17, upheld the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Order for winding up Devas (Digitally Enhanced Video and Audio Services) Multimedia Private Limited. Thus, Supreme Court rejected the Appeal filed by Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd and parent Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd against the Order of NCLAT.

The Apex Court observed that Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. which in association with Antrix Corporation, once touted as a move to revolutionize digital media and broadcasting services via satellite turned into a case of fraud of a huge magnitude that cannot be brushed under the carpet, as a private lis (suit).

A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian, who were hearing the matter, remarked that what started out as ‘DEVAS’ (gods) ultimately turned out to be ‘ASURAS’ (demons).

On a petition filed by Antrix, the NCLAT had ordered the winding up of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. on May 25, 2021, which was also affirmed by NCLAT on September 08, 2021.

Devas raised the contention before the Supreme Court that the hidden motive behind the Antrix Corporation seeking the winding up was that they wanted to dodge the Arbitral Award of $562.5 million with simple interest at 18% per annum in favour of Devas by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Devas further added that it would send a wrong message to international investors. Although, the Apex Court found no merits in this argument.

The Bench observed that it does not know if allowing the winding-up would send a wrong message to the investors or not but allowing Devas and its shareholders to take advantage of their fraudulent action may nevertheless send a wrong message.

The Apex Court observed, “A product of fraud is in conflict with the public policy of any country including India. The basic notions of morality and justice are always in conflict with fraud and hence the motive behind the action brought by the victim of fraud can never stand as an impediment.”

Related Post