Five Years, Two Awards, Still No Trial: Inside the Devas v. India Saga

While much of Europe is winding down for August, this case is a reminder that complex disputes don't take a break — not even after five years.

Imagine winning a $111 million legal fight — twice, in arbitration — and still not getting your day in court five years later.

That's where the investors behind Devas find themselves, in one of the cases quietly shaping how international arbitration awards get enforced against sovereign states. A new ruling from the Quebec Superior Court is a reminder of something worth knowing well beyond the courtroom: shortcuts in complex disputes usually cost more time than they save.

Here's what happened. The investors had already beaten India's claim of "state immunity" — twice, all the way up through Canada's Supreme Court.

Understandably impatient after years of delay, they tried a shortcut: ask the court to throw out two of India's defence arguments early, using a fast-track procedure meant for arguments that are obviously weak.

The catch? Their "fast-track" motion ran 143 paragraphs and 27+ pages, backed by 47 exhibits — 31 of them brand new, totalling nearly 1,900 pages, pulling in proceedings from multiple countries. The judge's response was pointed but fair: you can't dress up a mini-trial as a quick preliminary motion. Complex, disputed facts belong in front of the judge who will hear the whole case — not one ruling on a narrow procedural point. Rather than simply rejecting the motion (more appeals, more delay), the court found a smarter fix: fold it into the main trial, so everything gets decided together, in one judgment.

The lesson travels well beyond arbitration. In any complex dispute — against a government, a company, anyone — the fastest way through isn't always the shortcut. It's picking the tool that actually fits the problem.Five years in, Devas v. India is no longer just an arbitration case. It's a case study in patience, procedure, and the real cost of trying to skip the line.