Judgment), The Delhi High Court Restrained Future Group From Proceeding With The

 Amazon.
com NV Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) had infused INR 1,431 crore into
Future Coupons Pvt Ltd which was to 'flow down' to Future Retail Ltd (FRL). Based on
mutual understanding, Amazon's investment in the retail assets of FRL would continue to
vest in FRL due to which FRL could not transfer its retail assets without Amazon's
consent.
 Within few months from the date of investment, FRL and 12 other group companies of
Future Group entered into a transaction with Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group
(Reliance Group). The transaction envisaged amalgamation of FRL with Reliance
Group, including transfer of its retail assets to Reliance Group, which led to dispute
between FRL and Amazon.
 As a result of this transaction, Amazon initiated an arbitration proceeding against Future
Group under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC Rules). Amazon filed an application requesting for injunction against the
transaction and sought emergency interim relief. On October 25, 2020, an Emergency
Arbitrator passed an interim award restraining Future Group from taking any steps
towards the disputed transaction. However, Future Group went ahead with the
transaction, describing the interim award as nullity.
 FRL then filed a suit before the Delhi High Court in which it sought to interdict the
arbitration proceedings and asked for an interim relief to restrain Amazon from writing to
statutory authorities by relying on the Emergency Arbitrator's award. However, the Delhi
High Court refused to grant the interim relief, which was not challenged by FRL.
 Separately, Amazon filed a Petition before the Delhi High Court under Section 17(2) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for enforcement of Emergency
Arbitrators' interim award. On February 2, 2021, and March 18, 2021 (detailed
judgment), the Delhi High Court restrained Future Group from proceeding with the
transaction. However, FRL challenged the order before Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court, and the Division Bench stayed the judgment of the Single Bench. Against this
order, Special Leave Petition was filed, and the Supreme Court stayed all the proceedings
before the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court’s Judgement:

The primary issue considered by the Apex Court was whether, an EA decision constituted an
order of an arbitral tribunal under the Act and the second issue being that, whether an order
passed under Section 17(2) (interim reliefs before an Arbitrator) of the Act for enforcement of
the award passed by an emergency arbitrator was appealable, or not under the Act.
The Apex Court held that emergency arbitration was within the contemplation of the Act and the
definition of an arbitration tribunal, included within its scope an EA.
The Apex Court emphasised the importance of party autonomy, including an EA to decide a

dispute that had arisen between them. It also referred to the SIAC Rules under which an EA has
all the powers vested in an arbitral tribunal. The Apex Court noted that Parliament had not
implemented the recommendation of the 246th Law Commission Report to enable
implementation of EA decisions in India. However, it considered that non-implementation of the
Law Commission Report on this aspect would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that EA
decisions are not enforceable in India on a proper interpretation of the Act.
The Apex Court referred to the Srikrishna Committee Report which considered that it
was possible to interpret provisions of the Act so as to enforce EA decisions in India.
The Apex Court also held that a party would be estopped, after having agreed to institutional
rules (in this case being the SIAC Rules) providing for emergency arbitration and
participating in an EA proceeding, from subsequently contending that it could not be bound by
an EA's ruling.
The Apex Court held enforcement of interim orders was created under Section 17(2) of the Act
only for the limited purpose of enforcement as a decree of the court The Apex Court further held,
after analysing the scheme of the Act, that an order of a court enforcing an EA order, or an
interim order of an arbitral tribunal would not be appealable under the Act.
 Later on, on September 9, Amazon had approached the Delhi High Court seeking
implementation of the emergency arbitrator’s award. However, the Supreme Court
intervened, on Future Group’s appeal, and ordered a stay on the proceedings of the
ongoing Amazon-Future Retail case before the Delhi High Court. The apex court also
directed the NCLT, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to not pass any order on the matter.
 The Singapore-based emergency arbitrator SIAC on October 21 had rejected Future
Group’s appeal to vacate the interim stay on the company’s deal with Reliance passed in
October last year. SIAC had also held that Future Retail is a party to the matter between
Amazon and Future Group, rejecting its (Future Retail's) request to be excluded from the
arbitration proceedings.
 The Delhi High Court on October 29 rejected Future Retail’s plea seeking a stay on the
October 21 interim order passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC).
 Delhi High Court (HC) has rejected company's ad-interim plea seeking a stay of
Emergency Arbitrator Order in Amazon-Future case.
 SLP before Supreme Court

Judgment), The Delhi High Court Restrained Future Group From Proceeding With The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgment), The Delhi High Court Restrained Future Group From Proceeding With The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgment), The Delhi High Court Restrained Future Group From Proceeding With The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 Amazon.

Supreme Court’s Judgement:

The Apex Court emphasised the importance of party autonomy, including an EA to decide a

You might also like