Amazon-Future Dispute: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court's Direction For Coercive Steps Against Future Group [Updated With Judgment]

In a major relief to Future group companies, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the orders of the Delhi High Court which initiated coercive steps against the companies and its promoters Biyanis for alleged violation of the Emergency Award passed by the Singapore Tribunal on the application filed by e-commerce giant Amazon.The Supreme Court has set aside the orders dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court ordering coercive steps against Future group and the order dated 29.10.2021 which refused to stay the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal's refusal to vacate the Emergency Award which restrained Future's deal with Reliance.The Supreme Court has remanded the matters to the Delhi High Court."We set aside impugned orders dated 2/2/2021 & 18/3/2021 and other impugned order dated 29th Oct. We Direct the Ld judge to consider issue and pass an order on its own merits uninfluenced by observations", the Chief Justice of India pronounced the operative portion of the order. Detaield copy of the judgment is awaited. "...so far as the interim relief is concerned we said that after the order is reserved, another writ petition filed. We perused the content and some issued interlinked with interlocutory order we'll hear with a writ petition", the CJI said. The bench is considering another writ petiton filed by Future Group against the recovery actions initiated by banks. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli delivered its judgement in the following two pleas: Special Leave Petitions of Future Coupons Private Ltd and Future Retail Ltd against Delhi High Court's Single Bench March 2021 order directing attachment of assets of Future group companies and its promoters for breach of Emergency Award (order passed by a single bench of Justice Midha). In the order dated 18.03.2021, Justice Midha confirmed the earlier order dated 02.02.2021 which directed status quo on FRL-Reliance deal.Special Leave Petitions of both FRL and FCPL challenging Delhi HC's 29th Oct order which refused to stay the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal's refusal to vacate the Emergency Award restraining it to continue with Reliance deal.The Supreme Court had reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocates Harish Salve(for Future Coupons), Mukul Rohatgi (for Future Retail), Gopal Subramaniam and Aspi Chinoy for Amazon.Procedural irregularities by single bench; No opportunity of hearing given to FutureThe Supreme Court observed that opportunity provided to the Future Group before the Single Judge was insufficient, and cannot be upheld in the eyes of law.Future Retail (FRL) and Future Coupons (FCPL) were not provided sufficient time or opportunity to file their counter or raise their defence and were allowed to file a brief note of submission within twenty¬ four hours, before orders were passed.According to the Top Court, serious procedural errors were committed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. It further observed that Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial review and providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law.Civil Contempt Can Be Made Out Only When There's Been Wilful Disobedience:The Bench observed that contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC not when there has been mere "disobedience", but only when there has been "wilful disobedience".According to the Court, the allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but "wilful" and "conscious".The Bench therefore set aside the punitive directions issued by the Single Judge against the Future Group companies and its promoters saying that the pre-condition of 'sufficient mental element for wilful disobedience' is not satisfied.The Bench also noted that Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appearing for Amazon fairly stated that Amazon is not interested in proceeding with the punitive directions.Courts Expected To Be Cautious While Making Observations On Merits Of Case: With regards to the merits of the case, the Court observed that the interim order enforcing the Emergency Award has adopted a standard beyond 'prima facie view', as required under law."It is expected of Courts to be cautious while making observations on the merits of the case, which would inevitably influence the Arbitral Tribunals hearing the matters on merit." the Bench said Matter Needs To Be Remitted Back To Decide Important Questions of Law: With regard to the Delhi High Court's order dated 29.10.2021 which refused to stay the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal's refusal to vacate the Emergency Award which restrained Future's deal with Reliance, the Bench has observed that certain important questions of law...

Amazon-Future Dispute: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court's Direction For Coercive Steps Against Future Group [Updated With Judgment]

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srishti Ojha

Amazon-Future Dispute: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court's Direction For Coercive Steps Against Future Group [Updated With Judgment]

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers