- CCI clears Reliance-Future retail deal despite Amazon's objections
- Future-Reliance saga has a scary message: If Amazon can't enforce a contract, who can?
- What’s in store for Reliance as Amazon-Future Group legal battle intensifies?
- Amazon seeks control of Rs 30,000 crore Future Group assets with Rs 1,431 crore investment
Justice Mukta Gupta directed both the parties to file their written submissions on Monday.
In October, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in an interim order had restrained Future Group from selling its retail businesses to Reliance Retail until the SIAC gives a final judgement on a plea filed by Amazon. Future Group’s lawyers have maintained in the court that the SIAC order is not binding and enforceable in India.
"Lawyers from Future Group had accused Amazon of trying to derail the deal and argued if the proposed sell-off to Reliance is stalled it would be the end of the road for Future Group."
“Now my friend says that there is something called fiduciary duty to the company. Now My Lady please appreciate that the promoters maybe the directors but the company has singed these agreements. FRL is a corporate entity that has signed the agreement and FRL is also conscious of the FCPL’s SHA (shareholder agreement),” Amazon’s lawyer Gopal Subramanium said in a hearing on Friday referring to the FRL's promoter company Future Coupons (FCPL) in which Amazon holds 49% stake.
"Amazon has accused Future Group of breaching its contract by agreeing to sell is assets to Reliance Retail."
Amazon has accused Future Group of breaching its contract by agreeing to sell is assets to Reliance Retail. “How can today this argument be raised to justify a breach of contract. Directors will suddenly rely upon an exulted sense of fiduciary duty to justify a breach of a contract. Therefore, My Lady the argument of sinking, drowning is actually incorrect.”
Subramanium also argued that SIAC rules are an intrinsic part of the arbitration agreement and therefore the scheme of the rules are manifestation of consent.
Therefore the argument of inherent lack of jurisdiction is flawed, because the parties consented to SIAC Rules and the clause is not under question here, Subramanium said.
Subramanium stated that though FRL had fought before the emergency arbitrator consciously and the Indian retailer has now approached the court because they failed before the EA.
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
1 Comment on this Story
Kochar Bipin103 days ago
The Delhi High Court should give Amazon 1 week to make a counter offer - if it fails to do so, then FRL should be allowed to go ahead