Amazon seeks enforcement of Emergency Award for collateral purposes; doesn't want competition: Future Retail tells Delhi High Court

Future Retail Ltd today argued before the Delhi High Court that Amazon has filed its petition seeking enforcement of the emergency award for “collateral purposes” (Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Coupons Pvt Ltd & Ors)..This order has been there for over two months..It is a desperate attempt to get some observation from the Court, Senior counsel for Future Retail, Darius Khambata told the single-judge Bench of Justice JR Midha..The emergency award in question had restrained Future Group from going ahead with the deal with Reliance Retail. .Khambata contended that the present petition, which seeks enforcement of the emergency award under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, was not maintainable. .It was asserted that only an order of a final arbitral tribunal could be enforced under Section 17(2) and not an emergency award which was completely distinct in nature. .Khambata further pointed out that while the single judge in FRL's suit against Amazon had found emergency arbitrations to be included under Part I of the Arbitration Act, the awards were not held to be enforceable under Section 17(2). ."Not one line would show that Justice Gupta said that it (emergency award) was under section 17. It's (emergency arbitration) an alternative to Section 9 provision. It was not held to be a section 17 order," Khambata argued. .Referring to the Delhi High Court judgement in Raffles case, Khambata asserted that the remedy before Amazon was to either file a suit for the enforcement of the emergency award or move a plea under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. .Strengthening his claim that the emergency award was not an award passed by a final arbitral tribunal, Khambata pointed out that admittedly, the arbitration tribunal was constituted in the separate case only on January 5. .Even the existence of provisions for emergency arbitration at the Indian international arbitration centres did not ipso facto make emergency arbitrator an arbitral tribunal under Part I, it was inter alia argued. .Senior Advocate Harish Salve also began his submissions on behalf of FRL. .Salve opposed Amazon's claim that it was under an obligation to seek permission from it to sell its retail assets.."If this transaction (with Reliance) cancels, the shops will close just because this fat American company wants to make money," Salve remarked as he claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic "tanked" the company which runs Big Bazaar and employs thousands of people. .Salve stated that FRL had no agreement with Amazon and the agreement was only between Amazon and FRL's investor, Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL). ."Amazon in its representation to CCI said I'm investing in FCPL to promote its business of gift and loyalty card.. Rs 1,430 crore were invested by Amazon in FCPL..but I (FRL) have no agreement with Amazon. FCPL bought shares in FRL.".He added,."If FRL goes into IBC..this investment (by Amazon) is a bogey. Their (Amazon) concern is that Reliance shouldn't expand it's business in India and take control over 1500 shops. It is not about Rs 1,400 crore.. American company doesn't want this competition.".Salve also pointed out that the Single Judge had opined that Amazon's claim of having control over FRL, an Indian listed company, would be in violation of FDI laws which do not permit multi-brand FDI. .Appearing for Amazon, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium clarified that Amazon's agreement with FCPL was "coupled with the assurance" that retail assets would be protected. .It was submitted that while Amazon wanted to "rescue" FRL, the promoters chose to side with a "restricted entity" i.e Reliance. .After hearing the senior counsel at length, the Court issued notice in the petition. .The matter would be heard next on February 1. .[Read full account of the hearing below].Delhi High Court continues hearing Amazon v. Future Retail: LIVE UPDATES