Antrix-Devas dispute: Unravelling €3.8 million Paris apartment seizure and India’s sovereign risk

In an unexpected move, a €3.8 million Paris apartment—used by India’s Deputy Chief of Mission—was seized by a French court in 2022. The action stems from a prolonged legal battle between Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and Devas Multimedia, a Bengaluru-based startup. What began as a satellite services deal has evolved into a global legal dispute, culminating in a unanimous US Supreme Court decision on June 6.

The ruling has exposed Indian assets abroad to seizure, raising questions about the country's legal credibility and investment environment. This article examines the details of the case, assesses the claims made in a viral X thread by @zerodhamarkets, and reflects on the broader implications for India.

A €3.8 million Paris apartment belonging to India's Deputy Chief of Mission was seized by French courts in 2022.

The reason? A decade-old satellite deal gone spectacularly wrong. This is just the beginning of a global hunt for Indian assets.🧵👇

— Markets by Zerodha (@zerodhamarkets) June 10, 2025

How dispute began

The controversy dates back to 2005, when Antrix agreed to lease 70 MHz of S-band spectrum to Devas Multimedia for 12 years. Devas, supported by Silicon Valley investors and Deutsche Telekom, paid ₹167 crore in advance to develop a satellite-to-mobile multimedia service. In return, Antrix was to receive regular income from the deal.

However, by 2011, national security concerns—heightened by the fallout from the 2G spectrum scandal—led the Indian government to cancel the contract. Antrix offered a partial refund of ₹58 crore, but Devas refused, calling the cancellation a “self-induced breach.” Legal proceedings soon followed.

From arbitration to international litigation

Devas invoked the contract’s arbitration clause and approached the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). In 2015, the ICC tribunal ruled in Devas’s favour, awarding $562.5 million plus 18% annual interest. By 2025, the total has grown to roughly $1.3 billion.

Separately, claims under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) brought by Mauritius and Germany resulted in additional awards worth €195 million—taking India’s total potential liability beyond $1.5 billion. This figure is roughly equivalent to ISRO’s annual budget and is in line with what the thread reports.

Paris apartment beginning asset enforcement worldwide?

Indian and global mainstream media confirm the content of the X thread while the user's inference may be alarmist. But this was indeed the first success in Devas’s campaign to recover the arbitration award by targeting Indian state-owned assets abroad.

Other enforcement efforts include a Canadian court attaching half of Air India’s IATA receivables in 2021. Similar proceedings are ongoing in the US. A Devas adviser cautioned, “India has assets like this all over the world. This is just the beginning.”

US Supreme Court ruling: Ripple effect

A turning point arrived on 6 June 2025, when the US Supreme Court overturned a 2023 Ninth Circuit judgement. The earlier ruling had blocked enforcement of the arbitration award in the US, citing limited jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

However, the Supreme Court unanimously restored enforceability, putting Indian state-owned assets in the US, such as PSU bank accounts and diplomatic properties, at risk of seizure. This outcome matches the thread’s assessment of the ruling’s importance.

Jurisdictional stalemate between India, international courts

Indian courts, including the Delhi High Court, declared the ICC award void in 2022, citing fraud by Devas officials. This decision was upheld by India’s Supreme Court following the company’s winding-up in 2021.

In contrast, courts and tribunals in the US, France, and Canada have ruled in favour of Devas. This legal divide, noted accurately by the thread, illustrates the complex nature of disputes involving sovereign entities.

Sovereign risk, investment climate

The dispute has become emblematic of the risks investors face when contracts with state entities are unilaterally overturned. India’s decision to prioritise national security over contractual obligations has come at a steep cost—financial and reputational.

The thread correctly frames this as a sovereign risk issue. With Indian assets being targeted globally, the dispute serves as a warning to both investors and the government about the importance of honouring commitments.

Cautionary tale for policymakers

The Antrix-Devas saga, spanning two decades and multiple legal systems, illustrates the global fallout from domestic policy decisions. The seizure of a Paris flat and the threat to other assets underscore the need for consistent governance.

As India faces the consequences of this dispute, the takeaway is clear: legal certainty and respect for contracts are essential in a globalised economy.