JUDGMENT

1. Both these petitions have been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and challenge orders passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, functioning under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and in seisin of the disputes between the parties before me. CM (M) 1140/2022 challenges Procedural Order No.10 dated 11th October 2022, which allows an application by Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC ("Amazon", hereinafter) to supplement the Statement of Claim (SOC) initially filed by it in the arbitral proceedings. CM (M) 1141/2022 assails order dated 28th June 2022, whereby an application, by the petitioners and Respondent 2, seeking termination of the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c)¹ of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") has been rejected.

2. The memo of parties in both these petitions is identical. The petitioners are Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCL), Future Coupons Resources Pvt. Ltd. (FRL), Akar Estate and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and the Directors of FCL who would, hereinafter, be referred to as "the Biyanis".

3. The orders under challenge are interlocutory in nature. They do not bring, to an end, the arbitral proceedings, which are still continuing.

4. For reasons which would presently become apparent, these petitions are, in my view, not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They are, therefore, liable to be dismissed as such. But first, the facts.

Facts

5. There are, essentially, four dramatis personae in these proceedings. They are FCL, FRL, Amazon and Reliance Industries Ltd ("Reliance"), though Reliance is not a party to these proceedings.

6. Three agreements came to be executed amongst FRL, FCL and Amazon. These were (i) a Share Holders Agreement, dated 12th August 2019, between FRL and FCL (hereinafter referred to as "FRSHA"), (ii) a Share Holders Agreement, dated 22nd August 2019, between FCL and Amazon (hereinafter referred to as "FCSHA") and (iii) a Share Subscription Agreement, dated 22nd August 2019, between FCL and Amazon (hereinafter referred to as "FCSSA").

7. The FRSHA, dated 12th August 2019, between FRL and FCL restrained FRL from disposing of its retail assets to third parties including, for the purpose of the present controversy, Reliance. The retail assets were, mainly, supermarkets, run under the name "Big Bazaar".

8. The FCSHA and FCSSA, dated 22nd August 2019, executed between FCL and Amazon, envisaged investment, by Amazon, of Rs.1,431 crores, to acquire 49% equity in FCL. Clause 3.4 of the FCSSA required Amazon to obtain prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) before investment.

9. On 23rd September 2019, Amazon applied to the CCI for approval to invest in FCL. This was, purportedly, to strengthen the business of FCL and unlock its value. Conditional approval was granted by CCI on 28th November 2019, for Amazon to invest in FCL.

10. On 29th August, 2020, FCL gave consent to FRL entering into a Scheme of Arrangement ("SOA", hereinafter) with Reliance, vide a Board Resolution. Under the said SOA, the retail assets of FRL and its group companies were to be sold to Reliance for approximately Rs.25,000 crores, apart from an additional investment of Rs.2,400 crores to be infused by Reliance.

11. Aggrieved thereby, Amazon initiated arbitral proceedings (in which the presently impugned orders have been passed) under Clause 25.2.1 of the FCSHA, on 5th October 2020, under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Though there was no direct contractual relationship between Amazon and FRL, the primary contention of Amazon, in the said arbitral proceedings, were that (i) the FCSHA, FCSSA and FRSHA constituted a single integrated transaction, (ii) Amazon had special protective rights in FRL through FCL and (iii) the prior consent of Amazon had not been obtained before sale or disposal of the retail assets of FRL. Resultantly, Amazon sought, from the