The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dealt a main blow to Future Group by directing it to sustain status quo till additional orders concerning its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail to sell particular retail assets to the latter. Amazon has objected to the deal, searching for enforcement of an award by Singapore’s Emergency Arbitrator (EA) which has restrained Future Group from going ahead with the transaction.
The court mentioned the EA’s order is enforceable in the identical manner as that of an arbitrator’s order. It mentioned that the EA had rightly proceeded against Future Retail (FRL) and its award was not a nullity.
The single-judge bench of Justice JR Midha, meanwhile, has reserved its final order in the matter.
The bench also asked FRL to location on record inside 10 days all the methods and actions taken by it just after the date of the emergency award, October 25, 2020, in connection with the deal with Reliance Retail.
Earlier in the day, FRL had turned down the HC’s suggestion to engage in talks with Amazon. “We have no privity of contract with Amazon. It will create tremendous confusion to have talks with Amazon. We do not concede to this suggestion,” senior counsel Darius Khambata, appearing on behalf of FRL, mentioned.
Senior counsel Vikram Nankani for Future Coupons mentioned, “We echo the statement made by Khambata. A lot of water has flown under the bridge. ED has also started investigation thanks to their stand.”
Amazon, on the other hand, told the court that it was out of deference to the Indian legal method that it was prepared to enter purposive dialogue. The Singapore arbitration was an try to resolve dispute by way of talks, senior counsel Gopal Subramanium and Amit Mishra argued on behalf of Amazon.
On Monday, Justice Midha had asked Future Group and Amazon to uncover a option and recommended that the matter can be referred to two retired Supreme Court judges. “Both of you tell by tomorrow (Tuesday) whether any endeavour can be made … In commercial matters, it is always helpful to find a solution,” the HC had told lawyers appearing for the two firms. “For a person you’ve taken money from, you can at least make an effort to resolve …”, the judge had told FRL.