[Amazon v Reliance] Part I Arbitration Act doesn't provide for Emergency Award: Darius Khambata argues for Future Retail before Delhi High Court

Asserting that the Emergency Award passed against Future Group was of no consequence, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata today argued that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide for an Emergency Arbitrator and his award [ Future Retail v. Amazon].

. Relying on the scheme of Part I of the Act and case laws on the same, Khambata argued,

. "On a plain reading of Part I, it is crystal clear that our law does not permit a person to act as an Emergency Arbitrator for an India-seated arbitration and grant relief. Only a court under Section 9 can do it." Senior Advocate Darius Khambata . Since the Emergency Arbitrator had no jurisdiction, the award has no legal status and need not be appealed against, he submitted.

. Following a stay order by the Emergency Arbitrator, Future Retail (FRL) had filed a suit against Amazon to prevent it from interfering in its deal with Reliance.

.Amazon v Reliance: When parties to the contract are not objecting, who is Amazon to jump? Salve argues for Future Retail before Delhi High Court. Khambata, who appeared on behalf of FRL, broadly argued that since the arbitration was India-based, the Emergency Award was non est and any reliance on it before the Court or the statutory regulators was an unlawful interference with FRL's business.

. In response to Amazon's claim that interim relief could be granted by the Emergency Arbitrator under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules because the parties had agreed to it, Khambata said,

. "Parties can always agree to something that is consistent with the scheme of the Act. Emergency Arbitrator is not consistent with the scheme of the Act...Parties cannot contract out of "art I. Parties cannot abandon the provisions of Part I."

. He also claimed that FRL participated in the Emergency Arbitration under protest and that there was no question of acquiescence.

. Before Khambata made his submissions, Senior Advocate Harish Salve concluded his rejoinder arguments on behalf of FRL today.

. Salve reiterated that before the Competition Commission of India, Amazon had claimed that it was investing only in the business of Future Coupons Pvt Ltd which is a shareholder of FRL, and was not acquiring any interest or control in FRL.

. "FRL is a public listed company...Amazon cannot object...I'm saying that they're misrepresenting that I've allowed this East India Company (Amazon) to take charge over me...", Salve remarked.

.[Reliance-Future Deal] Amazon still thinks it's living during the time of the East India Company: Harish Salve before Delhi High Court. Claiming that the Future-Reliance deal was important to preserve competition in the Indian market, Salve added,

. " Why would you (Amazon) say that I shouldn't do business? If all these shops (run by FRL) close down, you will go to Amazon...Why does law prevent sale of goods cheaply? You will run all competitors to the ground. Later, you will milk the situation...idea is that competition remains."

. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium will respond to these submissions tomorrow.

. Read the entire account of the hearing here:

.Future Retail v. Amazon: LIVE UPDATES from the hearing in Delhi High Court

[Amazon v Reliance] Part I Arbitration Act doesn't provide for Emergency Award: Darius Khambata argues for Future Retail before Delhi High Court

Aditi Singh

Related Stories