Sushree Mohanty
Amazon has approached the Supreme Court contesting the Delhi High Court verdict which had granted a stay on the execution of the status quo directives passed by single-judge of the High Court with regards to the Future-Reliance deal in the matter of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC versus Future Retail.
The order passed by the single-judge was challenged in an appeal filed by Future Retail (FRL) against the said status quo directive.
The said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Amazon has contended that the Division Bench’s decision is unlawful, is of arbitrary nature and the bench has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Amazon in its plea to the Supreme Court said the High Court ought to have taken into consideration and waited for a detailed decision of single-judge bench prior to dismissing the hold on the said deal.
Amazon claims Future Group has violated the agreements of the contracts by consenting to offer its retail assets for Reliance Industries a year ago while Future Group denies the allegations.
In its Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Amazon has contested that the Two Bench Judge of the High Court could not have heard a letters patent appeal passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act.
“..the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that FRL could not have preferred the Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby challenging an order issued under Section 17(2) of the Act.”, Amazon stated.
It additionally said that the Bench failed to perceive the concept of “Group of companies” while passing the order.
A “group of companies” concept alludes to a situation when a deal endorsed by one firm in a group is likewise perceived to include other firms in the group that have not signed the agreement.
Amazon has additionally contended that Future Retail has acted in complete dismissal of the rule of law and procedures recommended by law and that any collateral challenge to an Emergency Award cannot be allowed.
The Judge has passed the status quo under the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act following a petition by Amazon demanding the enforcement of the Emergency Award under the said act.
While the judge passed an order of status quo directing the Future Retail Ltd with regards to its deal with Reliance, it however chose to reserve its decision on the petition filed by Amazon demanding to stop Future Group companies and others from depending on statutory authorities given by the experts in relation to the deal.
The said order was therefore ordered for a stay last week.
Additionally, the Division Bench said that since Future Retail Limited, has not entered into any arbitration agreement with Amazon and therefore the concept of “Group of companies” cannot be relied upon for the matter.
The bench additionally stated that statutory bodies like SEBI and CCI should not be barred from “proceeding in accordance with law” and asserted that it sees no reason to implement a status quo order from the single judge.
The matter centers on Future Group’s decision in August to sell its retail, wholesale and other organizations to Reliance for $3.38 billion, including its debt.
Amazon contends that a 2019 contract it had with a Future Group had provisions saying the Indian company cannot offer its retail resources for a sell to some listed organizations, including Reliance.