Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

CCDevas v. India, Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, March 20, 2026

20 Mar 2026
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited, and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Republic of India (I), PCA Case No. 2013-09 
View case details
Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Genevieve Marcotte, Benoît Moore, Sophie Lavallée
Claimant's counsel
Karine Fahmy, Amanda Afeich
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Corey Omer, William Brock, Antoine Dutrisac
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
CDM Holdings LLC, Devas Employees Fund US, Telecom Devas LLC, Borden Ladner Gervais, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, Airport Authority of India, India
Country
Canada
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a judgment from the Court of Appeal of Quebec concerning an appeal against a Superior Court decision. The lower court had previously dismissed the appellants' application for the recognition and enforcement of two foreign arbitral awards against the Airport Authority of India, finding that the respondent possessed state immunity under Canada's State Immunity Act (SIA).

Principal Legal Issues and Parties' Positions

The core legal issue on appeal was whether the Airport Authority of India constituted an indistinguishable subdivision of the State of India or an agency enjoying a distinct legal identity under Article 2 of the SIA. The appellants contended that the respondent was an alter ego of the State of India—which had waived its immunity—arguing that the State exercised "deep and pervasive" control over the entity. By conflating the alter ego doctrine with the statutory definition of a state agency, the appellants sought to attribute the State's waiver of immunity to the respondent and execute the arbitral awards against its assets.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants' arguments, upholding the lower court's reliance on expert evidence which established that the Airport Authority of India possesses a distinct legal personality. The Court emphasized that because the respondent is a distinct corporate entity, it benefits from its own sovereign immunity, which it had not waived. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed its prior jurisprudence (notably the Air India decision), holding that the corporate veil cannot be pierced to enforce an arbitral award against a state-owned entity unless the strict criteria of Article 317 of the Civil Code of Quebec are satisfied. The Court firmly rejected the appellants' attempt to bypass these criteria by importing alter ego concepts into the SIA's definition of a distinct legal entity.

Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the de bene esse application for leave to appeal as moot, noting that the appeal was of right given the amount in dispute. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal on the merits with costs, characterizing the proceedings as an unsuccessful attempt to seize assets held by the International Air Transport Association.