Delhi High Court dismisses Future Group's plea for termination of Amazon arbitration

The tribunal has been hearing Amazon’s petition against the Future Group in connection with the deal between the two companies signed in 2019

Press Trust of India January 04, 2022 21:28:38 IST
Delhi High Court dismisses Future Group's plea for termination of Amazon arbitration

Representational image. PTI

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed two Future Group's pleas seeking a direction to the arbitration tribunal, adjudicating Amazon's objections against Future Group's deal with Reliance, to take a decision on their application for terminating the arbitration proceedings before moving any further.

"Both the petitions are dismissed," said Justice Amit Bansal, who had reserved the order on January 3 on the petitions filed by Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL) and Future Retail Limited (FRL).

The judge said it was not for the court to interfere with the scheduling of the arbitration proceedings and no grounds for interference were made out in the present petitions.

He said the tribunal has already fixed January 8 as the date for hearing the termination application after cutting short the scheduled four days' hearing of the expert witnesses.

Rejecting FRL's contention that the tribunal was violating the principle of equal opportunities, the court opined that in its prima facie view, there was nothing to suggest this or that the tribunal was not accommodative towards their requests.

This court finds no infirmity in the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in not postponing the hearings of the expert witnesses scheduled in January, 2022, the order said.

"In the opinion of this Court, acceding to such a request for adjournment, is bound to derail the arbitration proceedings as it would be very inconvenient and cumbersome to schedule fresh dates for the arbitration proceedings, taking into account the availability of all arbitrators as well as the experts," the court said in its 21-page order.

"There is nothing to suggest that the Arbitral Tribunal has denied equal opportunity to the parties or that the Arbitral Tribunal has not been accommodating towards requests of the petitioners," it added.

"Mere fixation of tight timelines or denial of requests for adjournment by the Arbitral Tribunal or deciding the order in which the Arbitral Tribunal considers the applications filed by the parties cannot be reason enough to contend that the orders of the Arbitral Tribunal are perverse or lacking in inherent jurisdiction," it said.

The court also stated that lawyers representing the petitioners testing positive for COVID-19 cannot be a ground to postpone the arbitral hearings, the dates of which were fixed a long time ago after taking into account the convenience of the parties and giving ample time to prepare.

Amazon and Future have been locked in a bitter legal tussle after the US e-commerce giant dragged Future Group to arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in October 2020, arguing that FRL had violated their contract by entering into a deal for the sale of its assets to billionaire Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Retail on a slump sale basis for Rs 24,500 crore.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for FCPL, had argued before the high court that the three-member arbitration tribunal was acting perversely by not deciding the issue of termination of the ongoing arbitration on a priority basis in view of the anti-trust regulator holding that the approval granted to Amazon for its agreement with FCPL, which formed the basis of the arbitration, was facilitated by fraud.

In December, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) suspended its over-two-year-old approval for Amazon's deal to acquire a 49-per cent stake in FCPL, FRL's promoter, and also slapped a penalty of Rs 202 crore on the e-commerce major.

Appearing for FRL, senior advocate Harish Salve had submitted that the tribunal, which is scheduled to hear issues concerning damages from January 5 to January 7, should first take up the termination application and defer the proceedings on other issues.

Senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and Amit Sibal, appearing for Amazon, had argued that there was no denial of equal treatment by the tribunal, which has scheduled the termination application for hearing on January 8, and contended that the tribunal has the discretion to conduct its own proceedings.

Amazon is objecting to the sell-off plans, accusing Future Group of breaching its 2019 investment pact. Future Coupons was founded in 2008 and is engaged in the business of marketing and distribution of gift cards, loyalty cards and other reward programmes to corporate customers.

In October last year, the high court had declined to stay the arbitration tribunal order refusing to interfere with the Emergency Award (EA), which restrained Future Group from going ahead with the deal with Reliance.
Several issues arising from the Amazon-Future legal battle are pending before the Supreme Court.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Updated Date:

also read

Can't invoke Article 19 rights, Meta does not discharge public function: Delhi HC told
India

Can't invoke Article 19 rights, Meta does not discharge public function: Delhi HC told

This comes after the high court received several petitions challenging the suspension and deletion of several user accounts by various social media platforms

Delhi HC to hear Sharjeel Imam's bail plea in sedition case on 26 May
India

Delhi HC to hear Sharjeel Imam's bail plea in sedition case on 26 May

Imam's lawyer said that he has been in custody since January 2020 and the Allahabad High Court granted bail to him in Aligarh speech FIR while opining that there was no call for violence

Marital rape: How understanding ‘context’ rather than just focusing on ‘consent’ will help resolve the issue
Opinion

Marital rape: How understanding ‘context’ rather than just focusing on ‘consent’ will help resolve the issue

It’s time we clear the ambiguity over the issue of ‘marital rape’. Either we decide to acknowledge it and make it a criminal offence, or we decide to exempt it from judicial scrutiny is a choice that the legislature and judiciary have to make