TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Amazon’s pleas against FRL-Reliance deal

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, July 29

Advertisement

The Supreme Court today reserved verdict on Amazon’s pleas against the merger of Future Retail Ltd (FRL) with Reliance Retail and would rule whether Singapore’s Emergency Arbitrator (EA) award, restraining the Rs 24,731-crore deal, was valid under Indian law and can be enforced.

Advertisement

Amazon and FRL are embroiled in a legal fight over the deal and the US-based firm has sought in the apex court that the EA award was valid and enforceable.

“So we close the case now. The judgment is reserved,” a Bench of justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai said after senior advocates Harish Salve and Gopal Subramanium, appearing for FRL and Amazon respectively, concluded their submissions.

“We will decide whether EA award falls under Section 17 (1) (which deals with interim award by arbitral tribunal) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. And if yes, then whether it can be enforced under Section 17 (2) (of the Act),” the Bench said.

Advertisement

The provisions of the Act deal with the interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal and Section 17 (1) says: “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order a party to take any interim measure of protection as the arbitral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute.” Section 17 (2) provides that the arbitral tribunal may require a party to provide appropriate security in connection with an interim measure ordered.

Salve referred to judgments on validity and the enforceability of arbitral awards and said there was no notion of EA under the Indian law on arbitration and conciliation and, in any case, there was no arbitration agreement to this effect.

There was no provision for EA under the Indian Law and “it can’t be done by the process of construction”, Salve said referring to the order of the Delhi High Court which had held the award of the EA to be valid. — PTI

Rs24,731-crore deal

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement