A division bench of the Delhi High Court had in January stayed the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal
A division bench of the Delhi High Court had in January stayed the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal
Amazon and Future Group on Wednesday agreed to resume proceedings before an arbitral tribunal in a dispute over Future’s ₹24,500-crore deal with Reliance in the Supreme Court.
Earlier this week, the parties had informed the apex court that there was no progress in talks for an amicable settlement of the dispute.
Appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Wednesday, Gopal Subramaniam, senior advocate for Amazon, submitted that his client faces “no difficulty” if the proceedings resume before the arbitral tribunal. . A division bench of the Delhi High Court had in January stayed the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal.
Both Amazon and senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi for the Future group of companies agreed that they can request the tribunal to decide on a priority basis, filed under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act to quash arbitration. A pending application. Process in the Amazon-future dispute.
“This entire dispute started because our application under section 32 to quash the arbitration proceedings was not taken up at the relevant time in January. Now if the tribunal can take up our application in the month of April, then all these proceedings can come to an end,” Mr. Rohatgi said.
“The sooner we make the request, the better,” Subramaniam submitted.
However, Mr. Subramaniam drew the attention of the court to the position of the Tribunal taking a decision not to terminate the arbitration process. In that case, the arbitral tribunal should be asked to order expeditious completion of the arbitration process, he suggested.
Meanwhile, he urged the top court to pass an interim order to safeguard Future’s retail properties so that they do not “disappear” till the dispute is decided.
Amazon on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to intervene and ensure that future retail assets are not taken over by Reliance.
Mr Subramaniam submitted that attempts were being made to “tosh down the apple cart” and that “things were being done.”
“Things are happening… if I lose, without a doubt, the plan [the deal] and the assets will go to Reliance through the scheme. I don’t have any issue. But if I succeed, the property should be there. I only want a protective order in respect of retail properties,” Subramaniam submitted.
Mr Salve said Amazon has already approached the Delhi High Court on the issue. “It is listed on Tuesday. She [High Court] That is where they should press for this relief,” Mr Salve submitted.
The bench suggested to Mr. Subramaniam that since the parties have no objection in resuming proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, Amazon should seek an interim order from there. But Mr Subramaniam said the tribunal had passed injunction orders twice in the past.
“Till date, there has been no compliance. Then what’s the point of me going to the tribunal and getting another interim order? As we speak today, while everything is pending, people are really messing with the property… then what’s the point of me going to the tribunal with another application for interim order?” Mr Subramaniam asked.
He said the situation was “extraordinary”. “How can I deal with a situation that property disappears in violation of one injunction and I go back to the Tribunal for another injunction. I have two orders. One on October 25, 2020 and the other, a mandatory injunction, on October 21, 2021. At least, protect whatever can be preserved till the end of the arbitration…” Mr Subramaniam urged the court.
The bench listed the matter on April 1 and asked Future Companies to file a response to Amazon’s application for resumption of hearing before an arbitral tribunal and an interim order on protection of assets.