Supreme Court Issues Notice On Amazon's Plea Against HC Stay On Singapore Arbitration Proceedings With Future Group

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on the special leave petition filed by Amazon against Delhi High Court's order staying further arbitration proceedings before the Singapore Tribunal against Future Group till February 1.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli issued notice to respondents Future Retail Ltd and Future Coupons Private Ltd and listed the petition for February 23.

When the matter was taken, CJI observed that the media has highlighted some observations made by him against Amazon, when it had sought to file written statements in an earlier matter in which judgment was reserved.

"I am sorry to say that papers are unnecessary highlighting whatever we observed, but it is the same for other side also (Future), they also don't want matter should go on", CJI said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for Amazon. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Future Coupons and informed that the Delhi High Court has listed the matter on March 23. He further said that the NCLAT is hearing Amazon's appeal against the order of the Competition Commission of India, which revoked its sanction for the deal with Future Group, next week.

Background

The impunged order of the division bench also stayed the Single Judge order which had dismissed Future Group's plea challenging the two orders passed by the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal which deferred the hearing in Future's plea seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings instituted by Amazon.

The High Court had also issued notice on the two appeals filed by Future Retail Ltd. and Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. impugning the said Single Judge order and made it returnable on February 1, 2022.

Before the High Court, Future Group in its plea had placed reliance on an order passed by the Competition Commission of India on December 17, 2021, which had kept the approval granted for Amazon's deal with Future Group in abeyance.

Before the Supreme Court, Amazon has argued that the impugned interim order injuncting an ongoing international commercial arbitration seated in New Delhi under SIAC Rules presided over by a distinguished Arbitral Tribunal and involving parties and experts from across the world is strikingly contrary to the provisions, intent and purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which emphasises party autonomy and minimum judicial interference.

Amazon has submitted before Supreme Court that the sole reason given in the Impugned Interim Common Order is certain observations made in the CCI Order. Further, the CCI Order itself was a subject matter of consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal in the Termination Applications, to which replies had already been filed and the matter was scheduled for hearing on 07.01.2022 and 08.01.2022. In any event, the CCI Order is subject to an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which is being pursued by the Petitioner.

According to Amazon, the observation of the Division Bench that the Termination Applications should have been taken up on priority and before recording evidence is a direct interference in the procedural autonomy of the Arbitral Tribunal and wholly uncalled for, given that the said Termination Applications were listed for hearing just two days later, on 07.01.2022.

Amazon has stated that though , in the Impugned order, lip service has been paid to the requirement of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, both were overwhelmingly in favour of continuance of the Arbitration Proceedings, which were fixed and ongoing.

On receipt of the CCI order, an application was moved before the Singapore Tribunal seeking closure of arbitration proceedings stating that any assertion of contractual rights against Future Group by Amazon would be in direct contravention of the CCI order.

Single Judge's Observations

The Court was of the view that just because the hearing of the termination application was scheduled for a date after the hearing of the expert witnesses, it did not mean that the Arbitral Tribunal was not willing to consider the said applications on merits or was discounting the merits of the said applications.

The Court further noted that prima facie, there was nothing to suggest that the Arbitral Tribunal denied equal opportunity to the parties or that the Arbitral Tribunal was not accommodating towards requests made by the Future Group.

Case Title: Amazon.com NV InvestmentHoldings LLC vs Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors, Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Ltd & Ors 

Click Here To Read/Download Order