Future Group trying to stall proceedings amid legal row with Amazon: SC

The Supreme Court said it 'was concerned' that the Future Group was trying to stall the proceedings before the Singapore Arbitral Tribunal

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was concerned that the Future group was trying to stall arbitral proceedings at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in its legal row with Amazon.

Amazon, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Subramaniam, approached the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, Justices Hima Kohli, and JB Pardiwala saying the Future group was trying its best to stall arbitral proceedings on November 28. The CJI told Subramaniam that he will ensure the proceedings go on as planned.

“The intention of your client is to defeat the arbitration; your client is stultifying the order of the apex court. As the CJI, I am concerned. All ploys by well-heeled parties to delay the arbitration proceeding. Your client is trying to be too clever by half,” CJI Chandrachud told Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan who appeared for Future group in the case.

“We will list the matter next week and ensure that arbitration proceedings are not stultified,” the court said.

The Future group had approached the Delhi HC against the Singapore arbitral tribunal’s order that dismissed its plea to terminate arbitration proceedings started by Amazon against the Rs 24,713-crore merger deal between Future Retail (FRL) and Reliance Retail. 

Amazon had said that its Rs 1,400-crore investment in the Future group does not allow the latter to sell its assets to certain companies, which includes Reliance.

The year-long battle pertains to a decision by the Future group to sell its Big Bazaar retail business to Reliance Retail, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries.

The court was also informed that before the arbitration hearing, the Future group had moved the Delhi High Court under Article 227, which says that high courts shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, challenging the decision of the SIAC not to terminate the arbitration proceedings.