The plea by Amazon Investment Holdings before Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the implementation of status quo direction passed by single-judge of the High Court with respect to the Future- Reliance deal, will be heard in the final week of April.
The matter was mentioned on Thursday before Justice Rohinton Nariman by Senior Counsel Gopal Subramanium for an early date.
“The High Court has extended the stay notwithstanding Your Lordship’s order. That is why we are mentioning this matter. Please list the matter for final disposal because pleadings are complete,” said Subramanium.
Subramanium was referring to the order passed by the Supreme Court on February 22 which directed that while the proceedings before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can go on, it should not culminate in any final order of sanction of the scheme.
“Ok, we will give you a date in the final week of April,” Justice Nariman told Subramanium.
The Supreme Court had on February 22 sought a response from Future Retail Limited in plea by Amazon Investment Holdings challenging the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the implementation of status quo direction passed by single-judge of the High Court with respect to the Future- Reliance deal.
Amazon had moved the Supreme Court challenging a Division Bench order of the Delhi High Court which had stayed the implementation of status quo direction passed by single-judge of the High Court with respect to the Future- Reliance deal.
The Division Bench order under challenge came in an appeal preferred by Future Retail (FRL) against the status quo order passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice JR Midha.
The single judge passed the status quo order in Amazon’s plea seeking enforcement of the Emergency Award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
Amazon has contended that the Division Bench order is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being without jurisdiction.
In its Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, Amazon has asserted that the Division Bench of the High Court could not have heard a letters patent appeal from an order passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act.
“..the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that FRL could not have preferred the Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby challenging an order issued under Section 17(2) of the Act.”
It has also been contended that the Division Bench hastily passed the impugned order without waiting for the detailed order of the single-judge and without appreciating the “Group of Companies” doctrine.