SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Harish Salve, Darius J. Khambata, Sr. Advocates, Somasekhar Sundaresan, Raghav Shankar, Ameet Naik, Aditya Mehta, Tushar Hathiramani, Abhishek Kale, Madhu Gadodia, Harshvardhan Jha, Darshan Furia, Advocates.
For the Defendant :Gopal Subramanium, Gourab Banerji, Rajiv Nayar, Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocates, Anand S. Pathak, Amit K. Mishra, Shashank Gautam, Sreemoyee Deb, Mohit Singh, Harshad Pathak, Promit Chaterjee, Shivam Pandey, Kanika Singhal, Saloni Agarwal, Didon Misri, Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Rachit Bahl, Roopali Singh, Abhijnan Jha, Priyank Ladoia, Aman Sharma, Tanmay Sharma, Arnab Ray, Vedant Kapur, Pawan Bhushan, Hima Lawrence, Ujwala Uppaluri, Mohit Pandey, Raka Chatterji, Manjira Dasgupta, Aishvary Vikram, Ambar Bhushan, Vinay Tripathi, Advocates, Mukul Rohtagi, Vikram Nankani, Sr. Advocates, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwala, Karan Luthra, Pranjit Bhattacharya, Ankit Banati, Advocates, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Avishkar Singhvi, Madhavi Khanna, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Aditya Swarup, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1)(d), 2(2), 9, 17 - Validity of Emergency Arbitrator order under SIAC Rules - Suit filed seeking injunction against Amazon for interfering with proposed transaction between Future Retail Limited and Reliance - Court finds the Emergency Arbitrator has legal status under Indian law, and parties have autonomy to contract regarding dispute resolution processes in the FCPL SHA and FRL SHA, thus the allegation of tortious interference stands prima facie established. (Paras 8.1, 10.1 and 12.1)

Facts of the case:
Future Retail Ltd. (FRL) engaged in negotiations to sell business assets to Reliance as it faced financial distress due to Covid-19 pandemic. Amazon claimed rights under shareholder agreements to block the transaction.

Findings of Court:
The court concludes Amazon's interference is prima facie unlawful, affecting FRL's ability to restructure its debt amidst financial peril and preserving the stakeholders' interests.

Issues: Whether the Emergency Arbitrator has the legal status to issue binding orders; whether the resolution passed by FRL's Board is void or repugnant to statutory provisions; whether Amazon's actions constitute 'control' over FRL according to FEMA regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Emergency Arbitrator retains jurisdiction under the SIAC Rules, aligning with party autonomy principles. FRL’s Board resolution was not void as it complied with statutory norms, and Amazon's claims of control through contractual arrangements may infringe on regulatory frameworks.

Result: Application dismissed, denying interim injunction but directing statutory authorities to decide on applications legally and impartially. (Paras 12.3 and 13.0)

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:

    (a) 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 interfering in any manner with the Disputed Transaction, including by way of injuncting the initiation or continuation by the Defendant No. 1 (Amazon), their officers, servants, agents, assigns, affiliates, representatives, or any person claiming through or under them, jointly and severally, of proceedings before any court, arbitral tribunal, regulator, statutory authority or otherwise seeking to stay, injunct or in any other manner interdict consideration of Disputed Transaction by the jurisdictional authorities in accordance with law.

    (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

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top