CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd and 12 others (Appellants) v The Registrar of Companies and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0045

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd,

Issue

dfgdfsgsg dsfg dfsg df gs jfgjhkf fbvdnbvm nvbmfh

Facts

The 13 Appellants are three companies (the “Companies”) and their directors and shareholders. The Companies are Global Business Companies incorporated in Mauritius. They are the shareholders of Devas Multimedia Private Limited (“Devas”), an Indian company which has been liquidated in India for fraud pursuant to section 271(c) of the Indian Companies Act 2013. The relevant fraud findings were analysed and upheld by the Indian Supreme Court in a judgment dated 17 January 2022 (“Indian SC Judgment”) and concern the procurement of a lucrative lease of satellite bandwidth from the Indian Antrix Corporation Limited, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation, through, in particular, wrongful collusion with government officials and the making of false representations as to the technology which Devas possessed and/or would deliver as part of that lease. On 28 April 2023 the First Respondent, the Registrar of Companies in Mauritius, applied under sections 215(9)(a) and (e) of the IA 2009 to place each of the Companies into administration. The Supreme Court of Mauritius granted the Registrar’s applications and appointed the Administrator (the Second Respondent) by ex parte orders (i.e. without notice) made in chambers on 28 April 2023 and 2 May 2023 (collectively, the “Administration Orders”). The Registrar’s application followed (and relied upon) a letter from the Financial Services Commission (“FSC”) to the Registrar dated 21 April 2023, in which the FSC drew attention to the Indian SC Judgment and outlined its view that it was “urgent and necessary” to remove the control of the Companies from their current management, in particular because, having regard to the findings analysed and upheld in the Indian SC Judgment, the Companies appeared to have been formed and operated for fraudulent purposes, and were being operated in bad faith in relation to the pursuit of arbitral awards which were the fruits of that fraud. The Administrator dismissed Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as the legal representatives of the Companies and sought a stay of a current arbitration between the Companies and the Republic of India (i) so as to comply with an outstanding anti-arbitration injunction made by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and (ii) pending his investigation of the companies’ affairs. The Appellants lodged appeals against the Administration Orders. The Appellants also made an ex parte application for an immediate stay of the Administration Orders pending the determination of the three appeals. The Supreme Court of Mauritius (judge in chambers) granted the application for a stay of the Administration Orders, which was upheld by the Court of Civil Appeal. The Court of Civil Appeal subsequently dismissed the three appeals on the merits, explaining that the Appellants should have pursued specific first instance remedies available to them under the IA 2009, namely (i) to challenge the validity of the appointment of the Administrator, and (ii) to apply to bring such appointment to an end. The Court then refused permission to appeal. The Appellants now appeal directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

14 July 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top