Supreme Court Disposes Amazon-Future Case As Parties Agree To Resume Singapore Arbitration Proceedings

The Court recorded that the Arbitration Tribunal will hear termination application filed by the Future Group under Section 32 (2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in priority to other matters and pass orders.

Based on the agreement by parties to appear before the Arbitration Tribunal, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishan Murari and Hima Kohli therefore disposed of the special leave petition filed by Amazon challenging the Delhi High Court's order which stayed the arbitration proceedings on a challenge made by FRL.

After considering submissions made by cousnels for both parties the Bench recorded "Parties will approach the arbitration tribunal to resume arbitration proceedings on understanding that it will hear FRL's termination application & R2- R13's termination application under Section 32 (2) (c) on priority and pass orders." 

Amazon's Application To Restrain Alienation Of FRL's Assets :

Also, the Bench today transmitted the application filed by Amazon seeking to restrain the alienation of FRL assets to the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is presently hearing the cases with regard to the Amazon- Future dispute. In its application, Amazon argued that the assets must continue to remain with FRL and operate with FRL until matter is resolved by arbitral tribunal.

"As agreed by parties already proceedings are going on before Single judge. In view of that, as agreed by parties IA to be transmitted to Single judge to hear and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law" the Bench rec

The direction was issued after Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appearing for Amazon informed the court that the Single judge, on a request made by counsels of both parties yesterday, has agreed to hear Amazon's enforcement petitions. Therefore he requested the court to transmit Amazon's application to the Single Judge.

While noting that these issued are already pending hearing before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the Bench had yesterday directed counsels appearing for Amazon and FRL to mention the case before the High Court and jointly seek hearing of Amazon's enforcement petitions on priority.

Background:

The Apex Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by Amazon against Delhi High Court's order staying further arbitration proceedings before the Singapore Tribunal against Future Group.

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.

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 & Or