[Amazon v Future] Ask NCLAT to expeditiously dispose of appeal against CCI order suspending deal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today asked counsel appearing for Amazon and Future Group to approach the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to expeditiously dispose of Amazon's appeal against the Competition Commission of India's order suspending its 2019 deal with the Future Group..The Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli was hearing Amazon's challenge to the Delhi High Court order staying proceedings before a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal in relation to the e-commerce giant's 2019 deal with Future Coupons..The Court noted during today's hearing,"The present SLP in one way connects to the outcome of the order passed by NCLAT challenging order of CCI. Thus, we ask the parties to approach NCLAT for expeditious disposal of the case.".When asked about the status of the case, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Amazon, said that the appeal was pending before the NCLAT, and that an application to terminate the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal was also filed. He added,"The tribunal is also very conscious of the dignity of the process. It will be wrapped up quickly. I am sure the tribunal will make all efforts to end this."CJI Ramana then said,"If we hear you, then proceedings before the High Court will become infructuous. Why can't we have the High Court wrap it up?"Subramanium urged that the arbitration proceedings be allowed to come to an end, in the larger interests of both parties."Chief Justice has said that best practices of arbitration internationally is embedded in Indian system. So to suspend this proceeding now will render this policy a blow too," he added..Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Amazon, said,"Having decided to go to tribunal, they [Future] filed plea under Article 227 [before Delhi High Court]. What do they want and on priority? Let tribunal hear this application."Representing Future Retail, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that the Section 32 application filed for termination of arbitration can be heard only when the challenge to the CCI order is decided.At this point, CJI Ramana said,"There are two options: we keep matter pending and let High Court decide in a week's time. If it's against, then challenge along with that. Second option, pursue NCLAT and see if proceedings are completed."Counsel for both parties then asked the Court to keep the matter pending and hear it at a later date. The Court eventually adjourned the case to March 9..On January 5 this year, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court had stayed the arbitration proceedings between Amazon and Future. It had also stayed the order of the single-judge which had refused to intervene in the matter and dismissed the pleas filed by the two subsidiaries of the Future Group.The Division Bench held that given the circumstances as well as the order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), there was a prima facie case in favour of the Future Group and irreparable loss would be caused to them if the proceedings are not stayed..An arbitration tribunal in Singapore had been hearing Amazon's case against Future Group related to the 2019 deal between the two companies. While hearing this case, the tribunal had passed an interim order stalling the sale of Future Retail's assets to Reliance Industries.Future Retail had petitioned the tribunal, arguing that continuing proceedings there would be illegal in view of the CCI ruling against Amazon.The CCI had suspended the clearance for the deal, stating that Amazon had failed to notify it about certain crucial details of its acquisition of a 49 per cent stake in Future, as required under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). It had, therefore, also imposed of a penalty of ₹202 crore on Amazon. This order is under challenge before the NCLAT.After the tribunal refused to consider the request before starting a final hearing, the Future Group moved the Delhi High Court. This led to the single-judge order that was eventually stayed by the Division Bench. Amazon subsequently moved the Supreme Court in appeal against this order.