The Delhi High Court today stayed the implementation of Single-Judge status quo order on the Future- Reliance deal (Future Retail vs Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC )..Amazon's request to suspend today's order for a week was turned down by the Court..The Court noted that Future Retail Ltd was not a party to an arbitration agreement with Amazon and prima facie opined that "group of companies" doctrine could not be invoked in the present case as the three agreements i.e. Future Retial Shareholding Agreement (SHA), Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) SHA and Reliance- Future agreement are distinct in nature. .Further observing that there was no reason to seek a status quo order from the Single Judge, the Court stated that statutory authorities like SEBI, CCI should not be restrained from "proceeding in accordance with law".."Prima facie there was no reason to seek a status quo order before the learned Single Judge.", the Court said. .The order was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. .Last week, Future Retail (FRL) had moved the division in appeal against the status quo order passed by Justice JR Midha..The Division Bench today issued notice in the appeal and stated that the Single Judge should pass its order uninfluenced by the present order. .The single-judge was dealing with Amazon's plea seeking enforcement of the Emergency Award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act..Amazon vs Future: Delhi High Court prima facie finds Emergency Award enforceable, orders status quo on FRL-Reliance deal [READ ORDER].The emergency award restrained Future Group from going ahead with the deal with Reliance Retail..In appeal, FRL broadly argued that in the presence of contradictory findings of Justice Mukta Gupta with respect to the absence of an arbitration agreement between FRL and Amazon, the Emergency Award cannot be enforced. .It was claimed that by virtue of the interim order passed by Justice Gupta in FRL's suit, the Emergency Award stood superseded and Justice Midha ought to have followed the findings of the coordinate Bench..Amazon, on the other hand, maintained that no case had been made out for not awaiting the order which stood reserved. .It was contended that since the Emergency Award was not under challenge before the Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, it could not be said that the directions therein stood vapourised. .The Emergency Award had been preserved instead, it was said. .The maintainability of the appeal before the Division Bench was also contested by Amazon. .While reserving its order in Amazon's interim plea to stop Kishore Biyani's Future Group companies and officials from relying on approvals given by statutory authorities in relation to the deal, Justice Midha had directed Future Retail Ltd to maintain status quo in relation to its with deal with Reliance..The Court also clarified that all authorities shall maintain status quo in all matters that are in violation of the Emergency Award passed in Amazon-Future dispute and file a status report in this regard within 10 days..Additionally, FRL was directed to state all steps and actions taken by it after the date of the Emergency Award i.e. October 25, 2020, in connection with the deal with Reliance..The Court further gave a prima facie finding that the Emergency Arbitrator rightly proceeded against FRL, that the Emergency Award was not a nullity, and that it was enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act..Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniam, Rajiv Nayar, Amit Sibal, briefed by P&A Law Offices and AZB & Partners, appeared for Amazon.Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Darius Khambata appeared for FRL..Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court today stayed the implementation of Single-Judge status quo order on the Future- Reliance deal (Future Retail vs Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC )..Amazon's request to suspend today's order for a week was turned down by the Court..The Court noted that Future Retail Ltd was not a party to an arbitration agreement with Amazon and prima facie opined that "group of companies" doctrine could not be invoked in the present case as the three agreements i.e. Future Retial Shareholding Agreement (SHA), Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) SHA and Reliance- Future agreement are distinct in nature. .Further observing that there was no reason to seek a status quo order from the Single Judge, the Court stated that statutory authorities like SEBI, CCI should not be restrained from "proceeding in accordance with law".."Prima facie there was no reason to seek a status quo order before the learned Single Judge.", the Court said. .The order was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. .Last week, Future Retail (FRL) had moved the division in appeal against the status quo order passed by Justice JR Midha..The Division Bench today issued notice in the appeal and stated that the Single Judge should pass its order uninfluenced by the present order. .The single-judge was dealing with Amazon's plea seeking enforcement of the Emergency Award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act..Amazon vs Future: Delhi High Court prima facie finds Emergency Award enforceable, orders status quo on FRL-Reliance deal [READ ORDER].The emergency award restrained Future Group from going ahead with the deal with Reliance Retail..In appeal, FRL broadly argued that in the presence of contradictory findings of Justice Mukta Gupta with respect to the absence of an arbitration agreement between FRL and Amazon, the Emergency Award cannot be enforced. .It was claimed that by virtue of the interim order passed by Justice Gupta in FRL's suit, the Emergency Award stood superseded and Justice Midha ought to have followed the findings of the coordinate Bench..Amazon, on the other hand, maintained that no case had been made out for not awaiting the order which stood reserved. .It was contended that since the Emergency Award was not under challenge before the Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, it could not be said that the directions therein stood vapourised. .The Emergency Award had been preserved instead, it was said. .The maintainability of the appeal before the Division Bench was also contested by Amazon. .While reserving its order in Amazon's interim plea to stop Kishore Biyani's Future Group companies and officials from relying on approvals given by statutory authorities in relation to the deal, Justice Midha had directed Future Retail Ltd to maintain status quo in relation to its with deal with Reliance..The Court also clarified that all authorities shall maintain status quo in all matters that are in violation of the Emergency Award passed in Amazon-Future dispute and file a status report in this regard within 10 days..Additionally, FRL was directed to state all steps and actions taken by it after the date of the Emergency Award i.e. October 25, 2020, in connection with the deal with Reliance..The Court further gave a prima facie finding that the Emergency Arbitrator rightly proceeded against FRL, that the Emergency Award was not a nullity, and that it was enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act..Senior Advocates Gopal Subramaniam, Rajiv Nayar, Amit Sibal, briefed by P&A Law Offices and AZB & Partners, appeared for Amazon.Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Darius Khambata appeared for FRL..Read the Order:
