Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - Live
Future Group trying to be ‘too clever by half’, says apex court
Supreme Court frowns on efforts to ‘defeat arbitration’ in battle with Amazon
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday frowned on the Future Group’s efforts to “defeat arbitration” and “stultify... proceedings” in its ongoing battle with Amazon.com and said it was “concerned” its own April order in the matter was not being followed.
The court told Future Group that proceedings initiated by it before the Delhi high court cannot “stultify” the ongoing international arbitration with Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC. It said that the Future Group was being “too clever by half” by using litigation as grounds to defeat the arbitration procedure, and agreed to list next week an application by Amazon seeking a stay on the high court proceedings.
Taking a grim view of the proceedings initiated by the Future Retail Limited (FRL) and its promoters in the high court seeking termination of the arbitration initiated by Amazon at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said, “You (Future Group) cannot keep on stultifying the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. This is a ploy to delay those proceedings.”
Amazon, represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium informed the Court that by two separate petitions filed before the Delhi high court, the Future group has sought termination of the tribunal proceedings and challenged the amendments carried out by the US e-tailer to the statement of claims including monetary damages in the SIAC proceedings. He further cited the order passed by the Supreme Court on April 6 recording the consent of both sides, while ordering arbitration proceedings to go on.
With the tribunal expected to hear the matter next on November 28, Subramanium apprehended that the high court proceedings could be a “ploy” by Future group to delay the tribunal hearing. He pointed out that the tribunal had by a detailed order shot down Future’s plea to terminate proceedings.
Senior advocate KV Vishwanathan appeared for Future and opposed the application on the ground that the high court had already reserved orders on one petition after hearing the two sides. “The cause of action for us to approach the high court arose after the SC’s April 6 order since Amazon later moved amendments confining to monetary damages. Better course is to direct the high court to pronounce its judgment. The proceedings before the tribunal will depend on the outcome of this judgment.”
The bench, also comprising justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala said, “Your client is acting too clever by the half. These are ploys by well-healed parties to defeat arbitration. This we will not allow.” It also noted that it had a duty to ensure the April 6 order is implemented. “We are concerned that the order passed by this court should not be made a nullity.”
At the same time, the bench reminded the parties that the sanctity of international tribunals should be kept and Indian courts should not be seen as interdicting such processes.
The Court directed Amazon’s application to be listed on November 25. Vishwanathan urged the bench to request the high court to pronounce its order by then. The bench said, “We cannot put pressure on the judge. We will say subject to the decision by the high court, you will not seek time before the tribunal.”
In 2019, Amazon agreed to buy a 49% stake in an unlisted subsidiary of Future, Future Coupons, which has a 7.3% stake in Future Retail, with an option of buying into the latter.
A year later, Future struck a deal to sell its retail assets to Reliance. Amazon obtained an emergency award in October 2020 to block the Future-Reliance deal.
In December 2021, the Competition Commission of India revoked permission for the Amazon-Future deal and imposed a penalty of ₹202 crore on Amazon, which challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Meanwhile, on a petition by Future Retail, the Delhi high court on January 5 stayed arbitration proceedings. It was against this order that the Supreme Court passed an order on April 6, directing resumption of arbitral proceedings. The SC also asked SIAC to first consider Future Group’s application seeking termination of proceedings in the light of CCI’s order.