Supreme Court asks Amazon, Future to file consent terms for resuming arbitration before Singapore tribunal

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Amazon and Future Retail to file joint consent terms for resuming arbitration before the Singapore Tribunal. A bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana directed both the companies to file a “joint memo” on Tuesday for resuming arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The arbitration proceedings were stayed by the division Bench of the Delhi High Court on January 5 after the Competition Commission of India suspended its clearance given to Amazon’s 2019 deal with Future Coupons.

The matter relates to Amazon’s objection to FRL’s Rs 24,500-crore merger deal with Reliance Retail without seeking its nod. Amazon has claimed that as per a 2019 deal it had with a Future Group entity — Future Coupons — it had the first right of refusal to any such transaction.

The tribunal had earlier directed status quo on the matter, which Amazon has alleged has been violated by Future and Reliance Retail.

However, the apex court on Monday refused to pass interim orders restraining FRL from alienating its retail assets until arbitration concluded. It, instead asked Amazon to seek relief on takeover of FRL’s stores by Reliance Retail from the Delhi High Court, which will hear the case on Tuesday.

During the hearing, the CJI was upset on how many applications and other documents were being filed by both the parties. “Don’t take advantage of this proceeding to address all your problems. It is a simple issue…please do not burden us by thrusting heaps of papers on us. Relief sought by Amazon is pending before HC and matter is going on before the tribunal. If you file hundreds of documents, then we may give some finding on an issue which can hamper your case,” the CJI told senior counsel Gopal Subramanium and Harish Salve who represented Amazon and FRL, respectively.

The apex court also asked Amazon and Future to inform in the next hearing on Wednesday, about the developments in the HC.

Subramanium reiterated that that FRL claims that it was short of money and therefore could not pay lease rental was wrong as it had on February 18 paid $15 million as interest to bond holders. “In its annual report, FRL mentioned that it had enough money to meet all lease obligations,”Amazon told the SC.

Alleging collusion between FRL and Reliance Retail, Amazon said that it was hard to believe that the former surrendered 800 of its stores without any protest.