FRL Vs Amazon: SC Reserves Its Judgement In This Long Encountered Case

Case Background

• US E-commerce giant Amazon and Indian Firm Future Retail Ltd got engaged in a legal clash following the latter’s transaction with the Ambani-led Business Giant Reliance.
• The matter was placed before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) which passed an interim injunction order against FRL.
• On appeal by FRL, the Delhi High Court validated the Emergency Award which led Amazon to seek the High Court’s direction for its enforcement.
• However, the Delhi High Court later stayed the earlier decisions which prompted Amazon to approach the Supreme Court.
• In the later months, there were conflicting views by two Benches of the Delhi High Court, and soon, the Apex Court adjourned the matter for two months.
• Further, the Supreme Court had commenced the hearing of the case in June/July 2021.

Amazon’s Submission

• Amazon argued that the Single Judge, Mukta Gupta, in his 132-page order dated 20th December 2020, had made a detailed analysis of the case, and passed the appropriate verdict.
• It was further argued that the interim orders of the Delhi High Court Benches are “mechanical” in nature.
• The order dated 22nd March 2021 that stayed the order that restricted FRL to proceed with the deal is null and void because the order was already granted by the Emergency Arbitrator, which is legally binding on the parties.
• Amazon also submitted the total facts of the case which triggered it to approach the SIAC for remedy.

FRL’s Submission

• FRL submitted that the interference of Amazon in its transaction is tortious in nature and the same amounts to control by Amazon over FRL which is against the FEMA Rules and Companies Act.
• This, it was stated, had already been upheld by the Delhi High Court earlier.
• Similarly, Amazon’s reliance on the Emergency Award is invalid because the award itself is not enforceable in India.
• Since Emergency Awards are not recognised under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it does not have any binding tendency.

Court’s Order

• After hearing both the parties in detail and when the Counsels for both the parties made their submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement in the case.

What are your views on the Case?