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

2022 Supreme(Del) 21

AMIT BANSAL
Future Retail Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Amazon. com NV Investment Holdings LLC – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Advocates with Mr. Raghav Shankar, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Ritika Sinha and Ms. Arshiya Sharda.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Gourab Banerji, Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Nakul Dewan, Senior Advocates with Mr. Anand S. Pathak, Mr. Amit K. Mishra, Mr. Shashank Gautam, Ms. Sreemoyee Deb, Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Mohit Singh, Mr. Promit Chatterjee, Ms. Anubhuti Mishra, Mr. Shivam Pandey, Ms. Samridhi Hota, Ms. Nikita Bangera, Mr. Pratik Jhaveri, Mr. Faizan Mithaiwala, Ms. Didon Misri, Mr. Chetan Chawla, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Rachit Bahl, Ms. Roopali Singh, Mr. Abhijnan Jha, Mr. Priyank Ladoia, Mr. Tanmay Sharma, Ms. Vanya Chhabra, Mr. Arnab Ray, Mr. Vedant Kapur, Mr. Shaurya Mittal, Mr. Abhisar Vidyarthi, Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Pawan Bhushan, Ms. Hima Lawrence, Ms. Ujwala Uppaluri, Mr. S.P. Mukherjee, Mr. T.S. Sundaram, Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Ms. Anushka Shah, Ms. Neelu Mohan, Ms. Smriti Kalra and Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocates with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Karan Luthra, Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri and Mr. Ankit Banati.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Bansal, J.

1. Both the present petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the same arbitration proceedings tilted as Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Coupons Private Limited, being SIAC Arbitration No.960 of 2020, involving, inter alia, (i) Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC [hereinafter ‘Amazon’], (ii) Future Coupons Private Limited [hereinafter ‘FCPL’]; and, (iii) Future Retail Limited [hereinafter ‘FRL’].

2. The challenge in CM(M) 3/2022 is to the impugned orders dated 29th December, 2021, 30th December, 2021 and 31st December, 2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, whereas in CM(M) 2/2022, the orders dated 29th December, 2021 and 30th December, 2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal have been impugned. In both the petitions, further relief is sought to declare the continuation of the arbitration proceedings as contrary to law and to direct the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the termination applications filed by the petitioners on 23rd December, 2021 before continuing with the arbitration proceedings.

3. The impugned order dated 29th December, 2021 is in relation to the Procedural Order No.6 issued by the Arbitral Tribunal

                            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 telegram-icon
                            whatsapp-icon Back to top