[ad_1]
Amazon and Future Group have agreed to appear before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the parties informed the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday.
Both the parties have also been directed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana to file a joint memo in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with regards to this.
In its order, the CJI also requested the tribunal to expedite the proceedings.
“It is stated and agreed by both parties that they wish to appear before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and request that the proceedings, pending adjudication before it, be expedited on the issues agreed upon between them,” the top court said in its order.
In the hearing, the Supreme Court has also asked both parties to request the Delhi High Court to hear the case of the enforcement of the emergency arbitration award passed by SIAC on priority basis.
Bank of India’s counsel also said in the Supreme Court that it would like to withdraw its intervention application. The three-judge bench also permitted the bank’s application to be withdrawn.
“The intervention application filed on behalf of the applicant/intervenor — Bank of India — is permitted to be withdrawn without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant,” the order said.
The apex court also asked both the parties to inform the Bench, in the next hearing, which is scheduled on April 6, about the developments in the Delhi High Court.
Currently, the high court is hearing a bunch of pleas filed by both the parties.
In the previous hearing last week, the Supreme Court asked if it could pass an interim order on a plea of Amazon that Future Retail (FRL) assets, including Big Bazaar shops, not be alienated till the dispute over its merger with Reliance Retail is decided by the arbitral tribunal.
It also said, “If tenants or landlords are not before us, how can the court pass an order injuncting them from taking possession (of shops).”
Over the weekend, Amazon submitted a special leave petition to the Supreme Court against Future Retail.
It alleged that the retailer is making false statements before Indian courts, including the top court, related to its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance Industries.
“The applicant (Amazon) is currently faced with a situation where it has valid, binding, subsisting, and operating injunctions in its favour, but is not being able to prevent Future Retail’s utter disregard of the binding injunctions,” said Amazon’s petition, dated April 2, submitted to the Supreme Court.
“The proceedings before the arbitral tribunal are stayed, while Future Retail is alienating its retail assets to the Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group in the garb of forceful takeover by making false statements before Indian courts, including the Supreme Court,” it said in its special leave petition.
Amazon made a plea for interim relief, which mentioned there should be no alienation or disposal of Future Retail stores to Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group, pending the final award in the arbitration proceedings.
It also made a prayer that Future Retail stores remain in control of Future Retail. Amazon said that in the event Future Retail succeeds in the arbitration proceedings, it shall be able to transfer retail assets in accordance with the scheme and upon final sanction by the National Law National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Future Retail also replied to Amazon’s special leave petition over the weekend and opposed the grant of interim relief to Amazon.
It said in its response that Amazon is seeking to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and deprives Future Retail of its statutory right of appeal against interim orders passed by any arbitral tribunal. It added that the application is based on the false premise that Future Retail has alienated its retail assets in violation of orders of an arbitral tribunal.
“The present application, on the other hand, not only seeks the grant of various interim reliefs travelling far beyond the resumption of arbitration proceedings, but additionally prays that such reliefs be directed to operate till the final award is pronounced by the tribunal,” FRL said in its response.
[ad_2]
Source link