Future Retail vs Amazon: Delhi HC asks the Kishore Biyani group to share responses to a plea filed by the e-commerce giant

Future Retail vs Amazon: Delhi HC asks the Kishore Biyani group to share responses to a plea filed by the e-commerce giant
BCCL
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought response from Future Retail Limited on Amazon's petition to set aside observations in the interim order of a single-bench in a suit filed by the retailer.

On December 21, a single-member bench presided by Justice Mukta Gupta had refused to restrain Amazon from interfering in Future Retail's deal with Reliance by writing to the statutory authority in view of the Emergency Award.

Pursuant to this, Amazon moved the division bench of the Delhi High Court against the order dated December 21. During the proceedings on Wednesday, the division bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Future Retail Limited and slated the matter to February 12.

Advertisement

Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Rajiv Nayyar appeared for Amazon. Advocate Harish Salve came on behalf of Future Retail Limited, while Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Darius Khambata for Reliance.

Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre after the firm signed a pact to sell retail, wholesale, logistics and warehousing units to Mukesh Ambani's Reliance in a Rs 24,713 crore deal.

As per the Amazon, Future Retail Limited violated the contract by entering into the deal with Reliance.

Advertisement
In a fresh plea before the Delhi High Court, Amazon stated, "The learned single Judge made certain prima facie observations on the merits of the Appellant's case in the arbitration proceedings which are inconsistent with the findings of the EA order and thus gravely prejudice the appellant."

"The prima facie observations contained in the impugned order effectively resulted in allowing Future Retail Limited to collaterally bypass the EA order," Amazon said.

Amazon said Future Retail has been relying on these prima facie observations to misconstrue the true import of the impugned order in an effort to mislead regulators to grant approval to the potential transactions which has forced Amazon to file an appeal to quash and set aside the prima facie observations.
{{}}