Amazon has stepped up its fight back against Reliance-Future deal as it has moved the Supreme Court against its partner Future Group's $3.4 billion retail assets sale, according to a Reuters report. Amazon has alleged Future Group of violating its contract by agreeing to sell its retail assets to Reliance Industries last year. However, Future has denied any wrongdoing.
Amazon argues that a separate 2019 deal it had with a Future unit had clauses saying the Indian group couldn't sell its retail assets to anyone on a "restricted persons" list, including Reliance. The move follows the Delhi High Court's decision on Monday to stay a previous order maintaining status quo on Future's Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance.
A bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh on Monday passed the interim direction on Future Retail Ltd's appeal challenging the February 2 order of the single judge bench.
Amazon had first filed a plea before the single judge for enforcement of the October 25, 2020 Emergency Arbitrator (EA) award by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) restraining FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail.
also read
- Reliance Industries: Moderating capex to aid cash flows, new energy to drive next phase of growth
- Mcap tracker: HDFC Bank, LIC biggest gainers among Top 10 firms, Reliance loses most
- Is Bazaar Amazon's budget-friendly answer to Meesho and Flipkart's Shopsy?
- Job cuts continue at Amazon. AWS lays off hundreds of employees
In an interim order, the division bench said it was staying the single judge order as firstly, Future Retail was not a party to the share subscription agreement (SSA) between Amazon and Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) and the US e-commerce giant was not a party to the deal between FRL and Reliance Retail.
The bench further said it was of the prima facie view that the share holding agreement (SHA) between FRL and FCPL, the SSA between FCPL and Amazon and the deal between FRL and Reliance Retail "are different" and "therefore, the group of companies doctrine cannot be invoked".
Another reason given by the court for its interim order was that there was prima facie no reason to seek a status quo order before the single judge.