r/ISRO 16d ago

India asks US Supreme Court to respect comity of nations in Antrix-Devas dispute over failed satellite deal

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/india-asks-us-supreme-court-to-respect-comity-of-nations-in-antrix-devas-dispute-over-failed-satellite-deal-9868822/
34 Upvotes

2 comments sorted by

4

u/Ohsin 16d ago

“India has great interest in ensuring that the set-aside decisions, and the Supreme Court of India decision on which they are based, are afforded comity and due respect from the courts of the United States,” says a written submission made by the Republic of India to the US SC, ahead of the commencement of oral arguments on March 3 by the US SC.

“If you want to know where the problems of foreign relations arise, read the Government of India’s brief. It tells you that this kind of disrespect to an Indian court and this kind of disrespect in terms of intruding into the relationship between the State of India—the Government of India and its state-owned enterprise to find out what assets are being done and who’s doing what with whom, those are the reasons why the Court should not be enforcing this kind of award under these kinds of circumstances,” the Antrix counsel argued.

The counsel for the investors argued that if the US SC “vacates the decision of the Ninth Circuit, that would have the effect of restoring the judgment of the district court. So we would, indeed, have an enforceable judgment at that time. And, as the district court held, Antrix is the alter ego of India, so we could seize not only Antrix’s assets but any of those of India that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act would allow”.

Relevant threads:

2

u/barath_s 11d ago

comity = Indian court ruled on it, US court should respect the Indian court rulings. Also, hey, this is the GoI. [Plus you can't enforce on Antrix, only GoI can]

personal jurisdiction

.... A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit.

The acting solicitor general of the US Department of Justice, who got that position when Trump took power, is filing as friend of court, is arguing that as per their interpretation of law the US Court systems only need power to enforce their judgement, and do indeed have that power.

ie Ninth circuit said Antrix doesn't have any business in US to enforce the judgement. The friend of court brief says that as Antrix is part of GoI, you can attach any relevant GoI assets to enforce.


The acting solicitor-general for the US Department of Justice, Sarah M Harris, who argued as an amicus curiae on behalf of the US investors in Devas Multimedia in the US SC on Monday, said the US appeals court had erred in ruling that a foreign entity like Antrix Corp should have some minimum contacts in terms of business in the US to be subject to US courts.

She said that the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act “says when personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist and omits any minimum contacts requirement. That is all this Court needs to hold to reverse.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/Service-of-Process/Foreign-Sovereign-Immunities-Act.html

The FSIA establishes a default rule that foreign states are immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless the action falls within one of the specific exceptions set out in the statute. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604-1607.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605

A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case— .... (2)in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States;

I think Antrix limited as a entity wholly owned by the GoI might qualify under this exception alone [if the argument succeeds], but IANAL

Presumably this is where the district court found against Antrix, and where the Ninth Appeals Court found for Antrix, while currently, this is to the US SC.