Amazon Approaches SC Against Future - Reliance Deal

Amazon approached apex court questioning the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the implementation of status quo direction passed by single-judge of the High Court with respect to the Future- Reliance deal. The challenged order was passed by HC in an appeal preferred by Future Retail (FRL) against the status quo order passed by a single-judge Bench.

Amazon submitted before the Supreme Court that the order passed by Delhi HC is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being without jurisdiction.

Amazon through its Special Leave Petition argued that the Division Bench of the HC couldn’t have heard a letters patent appeal from an order 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."

Further it was also submitted that the Division Bench hastily passed the impugned order without waiting for the detailed order of the single-judge and without appreciating the “Group of Companies” doctrine.

Also, FRL has acted in complete disregard of the rule of law and procedure prescribed by law and that a collateral challenge to an Emergency Award cannot be permitted: Amazon added.

The single-judge passed the status quo order in petition moved by Amazon asking for enforcement of the Emergency Award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

The single-judge while reserving it’s order in Amazon’s interim petition to stop Future Group companies and officials from relying on approvals given by statutory authorities in relation to the deal, had ordered Future Retail Ltd to maintain status quo in relation to its with deal with Reliance.

The Division Bench had observed that FRL was not a party to an arbitration agreement with Amazon and prima facie the "Group of Companies" doctrine could not be invoked.

Moving ahead, the Division Bench said that statutory authorities like SEBI, CCI should not be restrained from "proceeding in accordance with law"