Amazon has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order dated March 22 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court staying a single-judge order which had directed attachment of Future Group companies and Kishore Biyani's properties. .The Division Bench had passed the order in connection with the enforcement of the Emergency Award against the Amazon's deal with Reliance..A single-judge Bench of Justice JR Midha had held that Future Retail, Future Coupons, Kishore Biyani and other promoters, directors violated the Emergency Award. It also imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on Future Group companies, Biyani and other respondent parties.The single-judge had directed Future Group to not take any further action in furtherance of the deal with Reliance, holding that the Emergency Arbitrator had rightly invoked the 'Group of Company' doctrine in relation to the Future Group companies.Future Group companies had moved the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in appeal against the single-judge order. The Division Bench had then stayed the single judge order. Issuing notice in Future's appeal against the single-judge order, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh had said,"We hereby stay the single judge order dated March 18, 2021 till next date of hearing.."This prompted the present appeal by Amazon before top court. Amazon in its appeal has stated that the Division Bench erroneously placed reliance on another Division Bench order of March 18 which had stayed a single-judge order directing status quo with respect to the Future- Reliance deal.Amazon contended that the observations contained in Division Bench order of March 18 only relates to Future Retail and not others. .[BREAKING] Amazon v. Future: Appeal filed before Delhi High Court against latest order by Single Judge upholding Emergency Award.Further, it was submitted that the Division Bench failed to appreciate that orders made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are appealable only if there exists a provision under the Act specifically providing for a right to appeal. "It is trite law that if an order is passed under the Act, it is appealable only under the provisions of the Act and not under any other law," the appeal said. .Illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction: Amazon moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court stay on Future- Reliance deal status quo.The appeal stated that the Division Bench erred in relying on the reasons mentioned in the Division Bench order of March 18 for assuming jurisdiction in the instant case. "Such jurisdiction could have been assumed only in accordance with the legal principles settled in a catena of judgments which have unequivocally held that an appeal is a creature of the statute and the right to appeal inheres in no one," said the appeal..Amazon also submitted that Division Bench, while issuing the interim order, ignored the settled principle that the Act is a complete code and if no appeals are provided against certain orders under Section 37 of the Act, an appeal is not maintainable by reference to provisions of any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure.