Expressing dissatisfaction with the timing and content of documents previously filed by the parties in the Amazon-Future case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the Futures group hearing to Jan. against the order of the Delhi High Court refusing to remain in the arbitral tribunal. decided not to intervene in the Emergency Award (EA) of the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC).
A bench comprised of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Judges AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli, which had previously sought small written submissions from the parties to the case on behalf of “trucks” of public documents. cumbersome, again expressed displeasure on Wednesday over written notes filed by Future Group.
“The purpose of our final directive is for you to circulate the written note in advance so that we can read them sooner. I received this letter from the FRL at 10 p.m. … This morning we we received it from another party,” said the bench.
It then mentions the order and content of the notes by saying, “We couldn’t figure anything out. There’s no connection to the submissions… This is not a way of doing things.” that.”
Senior supporter Harish Salve, appearing for the Future group, said, “May I suggest, I’ll write a note myself today and file it tonight, and it could be written in. tomorrow”.
The bench then said that if there was no urgency the matter would go to trial on January 11. The parties agreed to that.
The High Court is hearing a new lawsuit filed by Future Group against the recent order of the Delhi High Court denying its plea to stay with the arbitral tribunal’s decision to refuse to intervene in the EA by SIAC, this restricted it from continuing with the Rs 24,731 merger deal with Reliance. Retail.
SIAC, in the EA, provided relief to major US e-commerce company Amazon by restricting Future from continuing with Future Retail Ltd (FRL)’s Rs 24,731 merger with Reliance Retail.
Amazon brought Future Group to arbitration at SIAC last October, alleging that FRL had breached its contract by entering into a settlement with rival Reliance.
On November 23, the bench was irritated by the “loads” of cumbersome documents by the parties in the case and asked if the aim was simply to entice or “harass the judges” and looking for a common small document synthesis.
It asked the parties’ advisers to submit a small amount of documents so that it could handle the matter and set the case for trial on December 8.
“I’m sorry to tell all of you. What’s fun in submitting 22-23 files? How many documents are there that both sides have submitted multiple times and the purpose is just to entice or otherwise to harassing judges,” CJI said.
Earlier, Justice Hima Kohli had offered to re-offend herself upon hearing pleas, saying that she and family members have shares in companies belonging to Reliance Industries Ltd, one of the interested parties in Reliance Industries Ltd. litigation.
“We have no objection,” a series of attorneys appeared for the parties – Amazon, FRL and FCPL said.
On October 21 of this year, an arbitral tribunal duly constituted at SIAC reiterated EA’s decision. On October 29, the Delhi High Court rejected Future Group’s plea to stay on the arbitration panel.
The High Court sought response from Amazon, which had challenged the merger before SIAC, and listed appeals by FCPL and FRL for a further hearing on January 4, 2022.
Recently, the FRL and FCPL moved the highest court against the order with fresh pleas.
Kishore Biyani and 15 others including FRL and FCPL have been embroiled in a series of lawsuits with Amazon, an investor in FCPL, over the deal with Reliance. Following the EA, a three-member arbitration committee is then established to decide on issues arising from the agreement.
On September 9, the summit court stayed for four weeks all proceedings before the high court regarding the implementation of the EA and also directed statutory bodies such as the International Company Law Court. (NCLT), Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) will not approve any final orders related to the merger pending.
Thereafter, the SIAC arbitration panel rejected on October 21 the FRL’s plea to lift the stay granted by its EA on October 25 of last year, finding that “The award has been exact level”.
FRL and FCPL moved the highest court against the August 17 supreme court order saying they would execute the order sooner by having its sole judge restrict FRL from continuing with EA’s award-chasing agreement. .
The Supreme Court has said that in the absence of the stay, it will have to enforce the order passed by its sole judge, Justice JR Midha, on March 18.
On March 18, besides restricting FRL from continuing its agreement with Reliance Retail, the court imposed a cost of Rs 20 lakh on Future Group and others involved and asked to attach their assets .
On August 6, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amazon and found that EA’s ruling, limiting the Rs 24,731 FRL-Reliance Retail merger to be valid and enforceable. under the arbitration law of India.
The Supreme Court also reserved two orders of 8 February and 22 March of the assignment bench by order of the Delhi High Court which overturned the order of a single judge on the merger of the FRL. -RRL.
A bench headed by Justice RF Nariman has since retired to address the larger question and argue that EA’s award abroad is enforceable under India’s Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Degree.
(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from an aggregated feed.)
