INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait sought response from Amazon which had challenged the mergerThe Delhi High Court Friday declined Future Group's
plea for stay on an arbitration tribunal order refusing to interfere with the Emergency Award (EA) which restrained it from going ahead with
the Rs 24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait sought response from US-based e-commerce giant Amazon which
had challenged the merger before the Singapore arbitration tribunal under SIAC, and listed the appeals by Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) and
Future Retail Ltd (FRL) for further hearing on January 4.Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for FRL, urged the court to pass an interim
order clarifying that an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court - which stayed all proceedings in relation to the enforcement of the EA -
would remain in force despite the subsequent order passed by the duly constituted arbitration tribunal."I want the court to clarify which
That (Supreme Court order) was a consent order
This order is in place today
After this, the tribunal order was passed
What is the interim order that I'm seeking? That the Supreme Court order will continue to operate..
I don't want to be told that the tribunal order is in force," he submitted
Senior counsel Parag P Tripathi, representing FCPL, also urged the high court to "reiterate the order of the Supreme Court".Kishore Biyani
and 15 others including FRL and FCPL have been embroiled in a series of litigations with Amazon, an investor in FCPL, over the deal with
Following the EA, subsequently, a three-member arbitral tribunal was constituted to decide the issues arising from the deal.During the
hearing, the court observed that in view of the pendency of related appeals before the top court, it would need a "clearance" to proceed
with the fresh appeals."How can you expect interim order to be passed by this court? Supreme Court order says proceedings stayed..
Let us get clearance from Supreme Court that this is the position now (that) this subsequent order was passed," the judge said
The court further observed that the order passed by another judge of the high court earlier this year, which had upheld the EA, was yet to
be set aside and only enforcement proceedings had been stayed."In both the appeals, issue notice..
Application for ad-interim relief is dismissed," the judge ordered
Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and Rajiv Nayar appeared for Amazon and said that the Future group was bound by the EA.In its plea, FRL
has challenged the order of the arbitration tribunal on the ground that it is "deeply flawed" and is "liable to set aside on fact and in
law" as there is no arbitration agreement between FRL and Amazon.Senior lawyer for FRL stated that the deal with REL was "time-sensitive"
and not only the company but thousands of employees would suffer if it does not go through.On September 9, the top court had stayed for four
weeks all proceedings before the high court in relation to the implementation of the EA and also directed statutory authorities like
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) not to pass
any final order related to the merger deal in the meantime.Subsequently, the arbitration tribunal under the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre (SIAC), on October 21, rejected the plea of FRL to lift the interim stay granted by its EA on October 25 last year,
observing that "the Award were correctly granted".Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration
Centre (SIAC) in October last year, arguing that FRL had violated their contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance
The FRL and FCPL had moved the top court against the high court order of August 17 which said that it would implement the earlier order by
its single-judge restraining FRL from going ahead with the deal in pursuance of the EA''s award.The high court had said that in the absence
of a stay, it would have to enforce the order passed by its single judge, Justice J R Midha, on March 18
On March 18, besides restraining FRL from going ahead with its deal with Reliance Retail, the court had imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on the
Future Group and others associated with it and ordered attachment of their properties.On August 6, the Supreme Court gave the verdict in
favour of Amazon and held that EA award, restraining the Rs 24,731 crore FRL-Reliance Retail merger deal, is valid and enforceable under
Indian arbitration laws.The top court had also set aside the two orders of February 8 and March 22 of the division bench of the Delhi High
Court order which had lifted the single-judge's orders staying the FRL-RRL merger
A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, since retired, had dealt with the larger question and held that an award of an EA of a foreign
country is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
