[Amazon- Future Battle]: Amazon Approaches Supreme Court Against Stay Order Of Delhi High Court Regarding Enforceability of Emergency Award The Supreme Court (SC) received an appeal from Amazon wherein it challenged Delhi High Court's (HC) order dated 22 March 2021 passed by a Division Bench of the HC staying a single-judge order which had directed attachment of Future Group companies...
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
[Amazon- Future Battle]: Amazon Approaches Supreme Court Against Stay Order Of Delhi High Court Regarding Enforceability of Emergency Award
The Supreme Court (SC) received an appeal from Amazon wherein it challenged Delhi High Court's (HC) order dated 22 March 2021 passed by a Division Bench of the HC staying a single-judge order which had directed attachment of Future Group companies and Kishore Biyani's properties.
The division bench of the HC had passed the order for the enforcement of the Emergency Award against Amazon's deal with Reliance.
Future Group and Amazon have entered into a battle after the US-based company took FRL into emergency arbitration over an alleged breach of a contract between them.
The litigation background of the case is that Amazon moved against Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), for violating the contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance.
In August 2019, Amazon had invested in Future Coupons with an option of buying into the flagship Future Retail after a period of three to 10 years. In August last year, Future had reached an agreement to sell its retail, wholesale, logistics, and warehousing units to Reliance.
The HC single-judge Justice JR Midha had held that Future Retail, Future Coupons, Kishore Biyani, and other promoters, directors violated the Emergency Award. It also imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on Future Group companies, Biyani, and other respondent parties.
The order of the single-judge was challenged by Future Group companies before the division bench of the HC in appeal wherein had stayed the single judge order. The HC division bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh and put a stay on the single-judge order till the next date of hearing.
Amazon filed an appeal before the SC against the stay of the division bench; it stated that the Division Bench had erroneously stayed the single-judge order directing the status quo with respect to the Future- Reliance deal. It added that the division bench order is only related to Future Retail and not others.
Amazon further contended that the HC division bench had failed to appreciate that orders made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) are appealable only if there exists a provision under the Act specifically providing for a right to appeal.
It mentioned in its appeal that "It is trite law that if an order is passed under the Act, it is appealable only under the provisions of the Act and not under any other law."
Amazon contented in its plea, "Such jurisdiction could have been assumed only in accordance with the legal principles settled in a catena of judgments which have unequivocally held that an appeal is a creature of the statute and the right to appeal inheres in no one."
It stated that the division bench while granting the interim order, ignored the settled principle that provides if no appeals are provided against certain orders under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, an appeal is not maintainable by reference to provisions of any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure.