A United States court has confirmed a $562.5 million arbitration award in favor of Devas against Antrix Corporation Limited, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

The judgment grants Devas Multimedia Private Limited a US-court judgment based on the international award, allowing the company to pursue enforcement against any Antrix assets located within the US court's jurisdiction. The ruling adds a US layer to a satellite-spectrum dispute that has run through arbitration, Indian courts, and parallel enforcement proceedings for over a decade.

What was the underlying dispute?

Antrix and Devas Multimedia signed a spectrum-lease agreement in January 2005. Antrix agreed to provide Devas with S-band transponder capacity on two ISRO-built geostationary satellites, GSAT-6 and GSAT-6A, in exchange for Devas deploying a nationwide broadband multimedia platform.

The Cabinet Committee on Security of the Government of India cancelled the agreement on February 24, 2011, citing strategic and national-security concerns. Devas treated the cancellation as a breach of contract and filed for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce.

What did the tribunal award?

The arbitral tribunal issued a partial award and a final damages award. The damages component totaled $562.5 million, with interest and costs bringing the cumulative liability to a figure reported in other proceedings at more than $1.2 billion.

Antrix challenged the award before Indian courts. An Indian court set the award aside in 2021, a ruling Devas has consistently contested in foreign enforcement proceedings.

How does the US confirmation work?

The US court acted under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, implemented in the United States through Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Under that framework, a foreign arbitral award can be converted into a domestic US judgment and enforced against assets within the enforcing court's reach.

Devas has pursued parallel enforcement tracks in France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Mauritius. The US confirmation gives the company a recognized judgment in another major jurisdiction and expands the pool of Antrix assets potentially reachable for enforcement.

What does the ruling not resolve?

The judgment does not address the merits of the underlying cancellation, which the Government of India justified by reference to national-security and strategic-spectrum concerns. Indian courts have set aside the underlying award, and the US ruling does not disturb that decision.

For practitioners, the confirmation illustrates the practical limits of seat-court set-aside proceedings when a state-owned respondent attempts to avoid enforcement of an international award. A narrow set of public-policy grounds under Article V of the New York Convention permits refusal of enforcement, and US courts have historically applied a deferential standard to foreign arbitral awards.

What are the practical consequences?

The confirmation carries immediate implications for Antrix's commercial operations. Antrix markets Indian launch services and satellite capacity to international customers, including those based in the United States. Any US-based counterparty that routes payments through US accounts creates a potential enforcement target.

For arbitration counsel, the ruling reinforces a track record of US courts enforcing awards that Indian courts have set aside. The decision also signals continued narrow application of the public-policy exception under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention when state respondents invoke it to defeat foreign awards.

Devas has signaled continued pursuit of enforcement across every jurisdiction where Antrix holds identifiable assets. The US confirmation extends that map by one more country.