Parties have no objection, Amazon is objecting, Salve tells Delhi HC for Future Retail : Amazon Vs Reliance

Nov11,2020 #Delhi HC #Delhi High Court
amazon law insider in
amazon law insider in

Nisha Ghosal

The Delhi High Court was hearing the case concerning Future Retail’s deal with Reliance.

The deal had come to a halt, in favour of Amazon, due to an “Emergency Arbitration” of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).

The owner of Future Retail, Kishore Biyani, had earlier announced its deal with Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Retail Venture Limited.

Amazon, one of the shareholders of Future Retail, moved to an Emergency Arbitrator, claiming that Reliance could not make a deal with Future Group it was on the negative list of 30 organizations.

The Emergency Arbitrator had then ordered to hold the further transaction between Future Group and Reliance.

The matter of issuing an ad-interim injunction against Amazon was heard by the Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta.

Similarly, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Future Retail, stated that the interim injunction award was not acknowledged under Indian Law.

Salve had asked for the issuance of directions barring Amazon from interfering with its contract with Reliance.

Advocate A M Singhvi, for Reliance, said that an “Emergency Arbitration” should’ve been held in Indian courts, which was recently conducted in the SIAC. [Future Retail V. Amazon]

“When parties to the contract are not objecting to the transaction with a restricted person, who is Amazon to jump?”, Salve argued.

Furthermore, he said, Amazon invested in a company called Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL). FCPL and Biyani had a shareholders agreement qua me i.e Future Retail (FRL). Therefore, Amazon is not a shareholder.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Amazon, stated that his client had certain rights as an investigator.


Related Post