The international tribunal noted that the continuation of the proceedings was not rendered unnecessary or impossible and that there was no ground for termination
Future Group contended that the Amazon-Future deal was declared illegal by the CCI and, hence, argued against proceeding ahead with the arbitration trial
No legal or material barrier arising from any moratorium would prevent the majority of the respondents from participating in the arbitration proceedings: SIAC
Inc42 Daily Brief
Stay Ahead With Daily News & Analysis on India’s Tech & Startup Economy
In a major blow to Kishore Biyani-led Future Group, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) on Tuesday rejected its plea to quash arbitration proceedings over the now-defunct Future-Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) deal.
The SIAC passed an order that stated that it would continue with its proceedings in a case initiated by ecommerce major Amazon.
The international tribunal further added that the continuation of the proceedings was not rendered unnecessary or impossible and that there was no ground for termination.
The matter pertains to the INR 24,713 Cr sale of Future Group’s retail assets to RIL that was announced in August 2020. Amazon claims that due to its indirect stake in Future Retail, Future Group is prohibited from carrying out the transaction with RIL.
In its plea, Future Group contended that the Amazon-Future deal was declared illegal by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and, hence, argued against proceeding with the arbitration trial.
The CCI, in December last year, had suspended the approval for the ecommerce major’s deal with Future Coupons, a subsidiary of Future Retail. Earlier this month, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) also upheld the competition watchdog’s move.
The Future Group also cited the ongoing Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) proceedings, saying that a moratorium is placed on all proceedings after the admission of lenders’ plea.
In response, the tribunal said that such a moratorium would only be applicable against FRL. The SIAC was further quoted by news agency PTI as saying that no legal or material barrier arising from any moratorium would prevent the majority of the respondents from participating in the arbitration proceedings before it.
Earlier on June 27, the Mumbai bench of the NCLT reserved its order on a plea filed by the US-based ecommerce major that sought to oppose Bank of India’s bid to initiate insolvency resolution proceedings against Future Retail.
In June itself, NCLAT also upheld a penalty of INR 202 Cr imposed by the competition watchdog on Amazon and directed the ecommerce player to deposit it in 45 days.
{{#name}}{{name}}{{/name}}{{^name}}-{{/name}}
{{#description}}{{description}}...{{/description}}{{^description}}-{{/description}}
.svg){kind=logo}
Note: We at Inc42 take our ethics very seriously. More information about it can be found here.