Delhi High Court to start hearing @amazon's plea seeking enforcement of Emergency Award restraining Future Group from going ahead with its deal with Reliance Retail.

Matter is before Justice JR Midha.

@kishore_biyani @fg_buzz

#Future #Amazon #Reliance

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appears for @amazon.

He will make rejoinder submissions today.

I'll be making a statement at the end of the hearing. There's a time zone gap: Subramanium on the Court's suggestion to parties to resolve the dispute.

We have no privity of contract with Amazon. It will create tremendous confusion to have talks with @amazon. We do not concede to this suggestion: Senior Advocate Darius Khambata for Future Retail

#FutureRetail

We have initiated Arbitration before SIAC. We are willing to enter into a purposive dialogue for the purpose of direct contact : Subramanium

#Amazon #Future

We echo the statement made by Mr Khambata. A lot of water has flown under the bridge. ED has also started investigation thanks to their stand : Senior Adv Vikram Nankani for Future Coupons

#Future #Amazon

Subramanium begins his rejoinder submissions.

The Biyanis are the people who drove the contract. The agreement with FRL was actually the agreement which was driven by Biyanis to induce us : Subramanium

@amazon

At the relevant time, there was no multi brand retail FDI in India. We hoped to have a foothold. I expected that assets would be available at the relevant time : Subramanium

The Biyanis wanted to collaborate with strategic foreign investors: Subramanium

They wanted to grow the business of Future Group and monetize the shareholding in FRL : Subramanium refers to the Emergency Award finding

As a first step, the restructured FCPL to acquire shares of FRL. This structure enabled Biyanis to attract an investor: Subramanium reads

FRL, FCPL and Biyanis entered into FRL SHA: Subramanium

The Biyanis together with FCPL held almost 50% of FRL. FRL required FCPL consent in case of disposal of retail assets: Subramanium

Amazon's consent was necessary before FCPL could give consent to FRL: Subramanium

Subramanium asserts that there is a restricted persons list in FRL SHA.

The agreement records that this Rs 1432 crore was received by FRL. What was the consideration? That you would not throw away assets or deal with restricted persons: Subramanium refers to the findings in Emergency Award

They said even though you are 49% in FCPL. For FRL assets, we would take your consent : Subramanium

The Emergency Arbitrator.. the transcript was made available.. it is admitted that but for this protection of asset this agreement would not have happened: Subramanium

When money was received and agreement was entered into, it was all in compliance of Indian law : Subramanium

FRL made a disclosure regarding FCPL SHA on Aug 22, 2019. FCPL issued a letter to FRL and provided the list of restricted persons which was identical to the list in FCPL-Amazon SHA: Subramanium

Teh Emergency Arbitrator analysed the Indian law and said that you (FRL) are bound : Subramanium

Share subscription agreement records that then money went it FRK account : Subramanium

The Biyanis approached Amazon that they needed INR 500 Crore for FRL. After having reaped the benefit and now say that all of this in illegal.. that's why Emergency Arbitrator said it was in breach: Subramanium

Now FRL would not veen exist : Subramanium

Does anyone put down INR 1431 crore so that the company is dissolved? : Subramanium

FCPL required Amazon's consent. FCPL could not have consented: Subramanium reads the Emergency Award

Parties agreed that parties could even get injunctions. This is in the SHA: Subramanium

Under the SIAC rules you have lodge an objection wrt to jurisdiction. SIAC court said no you have to continue. They raised it before the emergency Arbitrator: Subramanium

Now they've raised the plea of jurisdiction before the Arbitration Tribunal: Subramanium

It cannot be argued to say there is nulity in enforcement proceedings : Subramanium

FRL participated in Emergency Arbitration: Subramanium

These points were argued before the EA and rejected: Subramanium

In the EA, the Arbitrator is so careful in recording .. he wanted an assurance that status quo would be maintained. They refused and EA said it was constrained to pass some interim order : Subramanium

Subramanium refers to FRL's suit before the Delhi High Court.

FRL sought interim relief to stop Amazon from writing to the regulators : Subramanium

They do not challenge the Emergency Award but are willing to say that it is a nulity: Subramanium

Twice their objections were rejected. They are welcome to raise it again. But can the Emergency Award be disobeyed in the meantime? : Subramanium

The single judge was only dealing with the application to stop me from writing to the regulators. The application was dismissed: Subramanium

Single judge said the Award was in my favour. How can they interpret it to say that the court rubbished my order: Subramanium

The court was asked to say quorum non judice. The court rejected it: Subramanium

Can it be said it was superseded? The Emergency Award was not an issue before the single judge: Subramanium

The EA order today is an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. You have to move an application to set it aside : Subramanium

The application was not disposed of by Single Judge. It was dismissed: Subramanium

Amazon preferred a limited appeal .. this appeal is on the point that if there is an Arbitration clause and parties are before the Tribunal, the matter should be referred to the Tribunal: Subramanium

Subramanium refers the NCLT filing by FRL.

There is an invitation to go behind the order : Subramanium

Subramanium reads from his rejoinder note.

FRL failed to appreciate that the validity of the EA order is intact.. the order is still in existence. The court cannot go behind the EA order in a collateral attack: Subramanium

It is because the single judge said that the Emergency Arbitrator was not quorum non judice, the application was dismissed: Subramanium

Emergency Arbitrator has given reasons and analysis of our Arbitration Act : Subramanium

FRL has stated it's intention to file an application before the Arbitration Tribunal showing that the emergency award is binding : Subramanium

Emergency Award was valid and not a nulity. If I can rely upon the Emergency Award to the write to the Regulators, I can't enforce it? The single judge said irreparable injury would be caused to @amazon : Subramanium

SIAC Rule 7 says that Emergency Arbitrator has the same power as an Arbitrator: Subramanium

This is an India seated Arbitration. It is an interim order passed in Delhi. It is really Part I. FRL now can't unilaterally claim that Emergency Award is nulity: Subramanium

If single judge said I could go to an EA, would it not be enforceable under section 17? : Subramanium

To supersede an order, it has to be challenged. It has to be an issue. Single judge has not referred to any findings/ para of the Emergency Award : Subramanium

The single judge denied any interim relief to FRL. It said I could go and show it to the Regulators: Subramanian

Subramanium reads the single judge order recording that FRL was not pressing for any anti Arbitration relief.

Subramanium refers to passage saying that the Emergency Award was not under challenge.

The order was only on one prayer which was rejected: Subramanium