• Legal Era India
    • Legal Era Global
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • 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
    • 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
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
    +
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Interviews
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • 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
    • 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
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Interviews
  • Events
search-icon

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
17 Nov 2022 12:00 PM GMT

Amazon moves Supreme Court seeking damages from Future Group

By: Nilima Pathak
Chief-Justice-DY-Chandrachud


Amazon moves Supreme Court seeking damages from Future Group

The matter will be heard on 25 November

Amazon NV Investment Holding has moved the Supreme Court for allowing arbitration proceedings against the Future Group to continue before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).

Representing Amazon, senior counsel Gopal Subramanium informed the court that Future Group had expressed unhappiness that the tribunal was contemplating arbitration proceedings.

To this, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded, "You cannot keep stultifying the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal. This is just a ploy to delay the proceedings. All ploys by well-heeled parties to delay the arbitration...Your client is trying to be too clever by half and I am concerned."

Rapping the Indian retailer for filing over 200 petitions to stall arbitration proceedings, the judge added, "This is international arbitration. Is this how the courts of this country will bring repute to the process? India must maintain the sanctity of international arbitral proceedings. We will not let the arbitration process be stultified."

The Chief Justice directed the parties to be present before the SIAC on 28 November.

In June, SIAC rejected the plea of Future Group seeking termination of arbitration proceedings over the US giant's investment in Future Coupons. The SIAC in its order held that it would continue the arbitration proceedings that began in October 2020 after Future Group proposed to sell its retail, wholesale, and logistics assets to Reliance industries for Rs.24,713 crores.

The Future Group had recently moved the Delhi High Court against the SIAC ruling.

Future Group and Amazon have been locked in a bitter battle for over a year, following Future Group's decision to sell its Big Bazaar business to Reliance Retail, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries.

Amazon had opposed the deal stating that its Rs.1,400 crores investment in Future Coupons, one of the promoters of Future Retail, did not allow Future to sell retail assets to certain companies, including Reliance. At stake was whether Amazon could become a bigger force than Reliance in the $900 billion retail market with 1.3 billion consumers.

However, the US e-commerce giant is no longer seeking the performance of the contract. It is pursuing monetary compensation for its investment in Future Coupons.

In its petition before the apex court, Amazon notified its constraint to file the plea given the unusual circumstances of the case. It said that in July, the arbitral tribunal fixed the dates for the cross-examination of expert witnesses. But Future Group repeatedly sought adjournments on the pretext of the witness's unavailability.

Amazon further apprised that the international tribunal accommodated the parties on the requested dates. But Future Group, through two non-maintainable petitions, circuitously sought an amendment to the procedural timetable set under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Nilima Pathak

Nilima Pathak

Next Story
TAGS:
  • #Supreme Court
  • #Chief Justice DY Chandrachud
  • #Delhi High Court
  • #Amazon NV Investment Holding
  • #Future Group
  • #Reliance industries
  • #Big Bazaar
  • #Singapore International Arbitration Centre
  • #Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X