IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Future Retail Ltd. – Plaintiff
Versus
Amazon.Com Investment Holdings LLC & Others – Defendants
CS(COMM). No. 493 of 2020
Decided On : 21-12-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
I.A.10376/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC) Brief Facts
1.1 The plaintiff-Future Retail Ltd. (in short 'FRL') has filed the present suit impleading Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (in short ‘Amazon’) as defendant No.1; Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. ( in short 'FCPL') as defendant Nos.2; the promoters of the plaintiff (in short 'Biyanis') as defendant Nos.3 to 11, Future Corporate Resources Private Limited (in short 'FCRPL'), Akar Estate and Finance Private Limited (in short 'AEFPL') as defendants No.12 and 13 respectively, and Reliance Retail Ventures Limited (in short 'RRVL') and Reliance Retail and Fashion Lifestyle Limited (in short 'RRFLL' as defendant Nos.14 and 15 respectively (together referred as Reliance) with the following prayers:
(b) Restrain by an order of permanent injunction the Defendant No. 1 (Amazon), their officers, servants, agents, assigns, affiliates, representatives, or any person claiming through or under them, jointly and severally, from taking any steps that would constitute an interference with the steps being taken by the plaintiff to secure the requisite sanctions and permissions for giving effect to the scheme of arrangement and honouring its contractual rights on its contract with Defendant Nos. 14 and 15 including steps by way of relying upon/acting in furtherance of the purported Interim Order dated October 25, 2020 passed by the Emergency Arbitrator;
(c) Restrain by an order of permanent injunction the Defendant No. 1 (Amazon), their officers, servants, agents, assigns, affiliates, representatives, or any person claiming through or under them, jointly and severally, from in any manner seeking any relief or remedy from any court, arbitral tribunal, regulator, statutory authority or otherwise, on the basis that the FCPL SHA, FCPL SSA and the FRL SHA constitute a single integrated agreement/composite transaction;
(d) Pass an order for damages against Defendant No. 1, in addition to the above, to the extent of Rs.100 crores for drawing the Plaintiff (FRL) into unnecessary, frivolous and oppressive litigation alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum;
(e) An order for costs of the suit and the proceedings;
(f) Pass such other orders in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
1.2 Prayers in the interim application, that is, I.A.10376/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC) are identical to prayers (a), (b) and (c) in the plaint.
1.3 At the outset on a query raised by this Court as to whether the parties agree that this application can be finally decided based on the arguments on behalf of the parties without formal counter affidavits, learned counsels for the parties stated that the application be finally decided without formal affidavits based on oral arguments on behalf of the parties. Mr.Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff further stated that in the interim application, he is not seeking any anti arbitration injunction or any anti suit injunction but only
Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India
Anita International v. Tungabadra Sugar Works
Antrix Corporation Limited vs. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.
Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
Carona v. Parvathy Swaminathan
Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper Limited
Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent
Dalpat Kumar &Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh &Ors.
Enercon (India) Limited and Ors. V. Enercon GmBH
Energy Watchdog vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Firm Ashok Traders & Anr. vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja & Ors.
Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors. vs. Coca Cola Co. & Ors.
Hira Lal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath
Hira Lal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath
Inox Leisure Limited Vs. PVR Limited
Jwaladutt R. Pillani vs. Bansilal Moti Lal
Krishnadevi Malchand vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group
Mauritius Holdings vs. Unitech Limited
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation vs. Laughton & Ors.
Mohd. Murtiza Khan vs. State of M.P.
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma
N. Radhakrishnan vs. Maestro Engineers
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath
Nanalal Zaver & Anr. Vs. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Narayan Prasad Lohia vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia
National Thermal Power Corporation vs. Singer Company & Ors.
Needle Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holdings Ltd. & Ors.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coca Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Prakash Narain vs. Burmah Shell
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Rolta India Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. vs. Venure Industries Ltd. Haryana & Ors.
Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. vs. Meyer & Anr.
Shanti Prasad Jain Vs. Kalinga Tubes Limited
Sheolal & Ors. vs. Sultan & Ors.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. ONGC Ltd. &Ors.
Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind ram Bohra
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.