Delhi High Court Rejects Future Group's Plea Seeking Termination of Arbitration Proceedings With Amazon Before SIAC

UThe Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the pleas moved by Future Group challenging an order passed by Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rejecting its plea seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings with e-commerce giant Amazon. 

Justice C Hari Shankar clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties. The court said that the arbitration proceedings may continue uninfluenced by any of the findings.

The court observed that mere fact that there is no statutory provision under which the aggrieved litigant can challenge the interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal, is not sufficient to regard the litigant as remediless against the same.

"In such a case, the litigant has to wait till the final Award is passed and, only thereafter, can vent his grievances, both against the interlocutory as well as against the final Award," the court said.

The court further observed that "clipping of arbitral wings" is against the basic ethos of the Arbitration  Act, 1996 and that allowing free flight to arbitration is the very raison d'etre of the reforms that the UNCITRAL arbitral model sought to introduce. 

"Among the grounds of challenge – if, assuming, the award was against the petitioners and they chose to challenge it – could be included the grounds on which the petitioners seek to assail the impugned orders as well. Thus, the petitioners are not "remediless". They have a remedy, but they have to bide their time," the court added.

Dismissing the pleas as not maintainable, the court however reserved liberty with both the parties to urge the contentions at the appropriate stage.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Dayan Krishnan appeared for Future Group whereas Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium and Rajiv Nayar represented Amazon. 

Future had moved the High Court last month arguing that there was a "stark abdication of jurisdiction" by the Arbitral Tribunal, which relegated all issues to a final hearing despite the order of the Supreme Court to "pass orders" on the termination applications. The plea stated that the Arbitral Tribunal had acted in a "pre-determined manner."

"This approach has in essence rendered the hearings on the termination applications an exercise in redundancy for it is the same arguments and pleadings which will be regurgitated in the final hearing, putting the Petitioners to considerable prejudice in terms of cost as also time," the plea said.

Seeking quashing of the impugned order, Biyani group in its plea said that if no immediate and urgent reliefs are granted to it, Future will be forced to continue participating in the arbitration proceedings, claiming that the same are based on agreements that are "non-est in law."

"This apart, to continue these arbitration proceedings would be to perpetuate an illegality and allow for the enforcing of rights in direct contravention of the Competition Act," the plea added.

After the order was reserved in Future's plea on November 16, Amazon moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking interim relief and for allowing arbitration proceedings to restart before the arbitral tribunal.

Hearing the same, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, expressed concern that Future Group was trying to defeat its order and was intending to stall the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Title: FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1096

Click Here To Read Order