To resume arbitration proceedings in a dispute related to Future’s proposed ₹24,500 crore deal with Reliance
To resume arbitration proceedings in a dispute related to Future’s proposed ₹24,500 crore deal with Reliance
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered Amazon and Future to move the Singapore International Arbitration Center-ruled arbitral tribunal to resume arbitration proceedings in a dispute related to Future’s proposed ₹24,500 crore deal with Reliance.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana set aside the January order of a division bench of the Delhi High Court, which had stayed proceedings before an arbitral tribunal.
“The parties shall approach the arbitral tribunal to resume arbitration proceedings on the understanding that the arbitral tribunal may hear the FRL [Future Retail Limited] Termination Application and Termination Application filed by Respondents [Future group companies] Priority is given to other matters under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the order is passed,” the Supreme Court directed.
Section 32(2)(c) says, “The arbitral tribunal shall issue an order terminating the arbitral proceeding where the arbitral tribunal finds that the continuance of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible for any other reason”.
Disposing of the matter, Chief Justice Ramana said, “I hope there is no need for me to hear the matter again during my tenure.”
The court on April 4 asked the companies to file a joint memorandum of consent terms after the two agreed to resume proceedings before the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC).
In March, Amazon and Future prima facie agreed to the court’s suggestion to approach the tribunal with a request to resume proceedings in the dispute.
failure of negotiation
The suggestion to return to the tribunal came after talks for an amicable settlement of the dispute failed.
Amazon and Future also agreed in March that they may request the tribunal, on a priority basis, to hear and decide termination applications under Section 32 of the Act.
“This entire dispute started because our application under section 32 to quash the arbitration proceedings was not taken up at the relevant time in January. Now if the tribunal can take up our application in April, then all these proceedings may come to an end,” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Future, had said.
“The sooner we make the request, the better,” said Gopal Subramaniam, senior Amazon advocate.
Consequently, in the last hearing on April 4, the court asked both the parties to prepare a joint memorandum.
The Supreme Court in its April 4 recorded, “It has been said and agreed by both the parties that they wish to appear before the Singapore International Arbitration Center and request that the proceedings, the decisions pending before it, be on the issues agreed between them.” But be fast.” Orders listing the matter for disposal on Wednesday.