The Delhi High Court dismissed two petitions by Future Group seeking that a Singapore tribunal be directed to hear its plea on terminating the arbitration initiated by Amazon, ahead of final proceedings scheduled this week on the case.
On Monday, Future Retail Ltd (FRL) and Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) had approached the Delhi court with separate petitions calling upon it to ask the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to give precedence to its December application for terminating the process instead of completing the remaining hearings as scheduled in the year-long arbitration.
“Both the petitions are dismissed,” justice Amit Bansal ruled on Tuesday, a day after hearing arguments from the petitioners and Amazon’s lawyers.
On Monday, the HC heard the case after regular timings as Future Group had asked for an urgent hearing. The SIAC plans to finish the last leg of hearings on the arbitration case January 5-7.
The court addressed the point about giving directions to a tribunal in its order. The petitioners had based their argument on Article 227. “This court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot dictate to a duly constituted arbitral tribunal, the manner and the procedure of carrying out the arbitration proceedings,” the order said.
CCI Ruling at Play
Amazon India and Future Group didn’t respond to ET’s queries till press time.
On December 23, Future Group had asked the SIAC to scrap the ongoing arbitration, citing an order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that had put into “abeyance” the agency’s 2019 approval for Amazon’s investment in FCPL and imposed a ₹200 crore fine on the US ecommerce company.
“There is only a very small window for interference with orders passed by the arbitral tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227,” the Delhi High Court said. “The said window becomes even narrower where the orders passed by the arbitral tribunal are procedural in nature. Therefore, this window cannot be used for impugning case management orders passed by the arbitral tribunal, which are in the nature of procedural orders.”
The court said the tribunal was free to arrange the schedule of hearings as it wanted. “Such orders are completely in the domain and discretion of the arbitral tribunal, and include orders relating to the scheduling of the arbitration proceedings or the order in which applications filed by the parties are to be considered or the timelines in relation to the arbitration proceedings,” the court said.
Amazon Nod Suspended
The competition regulator said Amazon hadn’t fully disclosed its interest in FRL when it sought clearance for the ₹1,431 crore investment in FCPL. Amazon’s case against Future Group’s plans to sell its assets to
Retail is based on the 2019 acquisition of a 49% stake in FCPL.
The investment agreement bars the listed FRL from selling its assets to entities that include Reliance, according to Amazon. FCPL is a promoter company that owns about 10% of BSE-listed FRL.
On December 29, the SIAC said in its ruling on Future Group’s termination plea: “It is not clear whether or not the order dated December 17, 2021, of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is appealable and hence, cannot form the basis for termination of the arbitration proceedings.”
At the same time, the SIAC gave Future an option to hear on the termination application either on January 4 or on January 8, with January 9 kept as a reserve day.
“In view of the extensive preparations made for the hearing of the expert witnesses from January 5 to January 8, the arbitral tribunal does not consider it correct to abandon the said hearing for hearing the termination applications filed on behalf of the petitioners,” the SIAC December 29 order said. That prompted Future Group to approach the Delhi court.
Monday’s court filings by Future Group were the latest in a series of more than two dozen cases filed in the HC and in the Supreme Court by both sides in the dispute.
Source: Economic Times