SC to decide Amazon-Future case, stays High Court proceedings

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings before the single judge and division bench of the Delhi High court on the Amazon-Future deal.

A bench of Justices R F Nariman, B R Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy said the matter will be finally decided by the top court.

Also Read | Amazon moves SC against Delhi HC stay order restraining Future Retail deal with Reliance

On April 8, Amazon approached the top court against the Delhi High Court's division bench order, which vacated a stay on Kishore Biyani-led Future Group proceeding with its Rs 24,713 crore asset sale to Reliance Industries.

After a brief hearing on Monday, the top court stayed the High Court proceedings in connection with the amalgamation of Future Retail Ltd (FRL) with Reliance Retail.

It scheduled the matter for further hearing in the first week of May, after parties in the matter complete pleadings.

Amazon, in its appeal, had challenged the March 22 order passed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court staying the single judge order.

Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre in October last, contending that it violated their contract by getting into the deal with rival Reliance. In August 2019, Amazon had invested in Future Coupons with an option of buying into the flagship Future Retail after a period of three to 10 years.

Also Read | Delhi HC judgement would not have come in way of NCLT proceedings: Future Group

Earlier, FRL had moved before the Delhi High Court division bench challenging its a single judge's order upholding Singapore’s Emergency Arbitrator’s (EA) order. This order had restrained FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail to sell its business.

The High Court division bench granted reprieve to Future group from a single judge order on March 18, which restrained it from taking any steps to sell assets to Reliance.

Amazon had sought a stay on the March 22 order of the division bench, and terming it "illegal", "random", "inequitable and unfair".