- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Amazon files petition in Delhi High Court to seek injunction to restrain Future Reliance Deal
Amazon files petition in Delhi High Court to seek injunction to restrain Future Reliance Deal E-commerce giant – Amazon, has approached the Delhi High Court for the enforcement of the Emergency Award and seeking injunction to restrain Future Group in filing any application with regulators to complete its deal with Reliance and enforcing the interim order passed by the Singapore...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Amazon files petition in Delhi High Court to seek injunction to restrain Future Reliance Deal
E-commerce giant – Amazon, has approached the Delhi High Court for the enforcement of the Emergency Award and seeking injunction to restrain Future Group in filing any application with regulators to complete its deal with Reliance and enforcing the interim order passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).
Amazon.com Inc has requested the High court to block partner Future Group's $3.4 billion deal to sell its retail assets to Reliance Industries, in its latest attempt to derail the transaction.
Amazon has sought directions to attach the assets of Future Group companies Kishore Biyani and other related parties and has also prayed for their detention in civil prison. According to Amazon, the Emergency Award passed under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules is said to be enforceable under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The petition filed by Amazon asserted that the High Court, in its order passed dated 21st December 2020, had prima facie held that the Emergency Award was valid under the Indian law.
Amazon argued that Future breached some pre-existing clauses by entering into a deal with Reliance, but the Future group has maintained the arbitrator's order was not binding on it and needs to be ratified by an Indian court.
Further, Amazon has alleged that Future Group, Kishore Biyani as well as other promoters and directors have 'deliberately and maliciously' disobeyed the Emergency Award in spite of their participation in the arbitration proceedings.
The petition stated, "By simply ignoring the order and continuing with the impugned transaction is not only contumacious but calls into serious question their respect for enforceability of contracts, the rule of law, and the administration of justice, including the arbitral process government by Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act".
Amazon in its petition thus prayed for a direction to injunct Future Group and its officials from taking any steps in furtherance of the deal with Reliance. They further pleaded to restrain Future Retail from separating, disposing, transferring or creating encumbrances on its assets.
It is reported that the High Court was also informed that Amazon has already filed an appeal before the Division Bench for the limited purposes of challenging the prima facie observations on the validity of the board resolution approving Reliance-Future Retail deal and conflation of various shareholding agreement between Future Group companies and Amazon.
The petition is expected to be listed before the Delhi High Court this week.