NEW DELHI Future Retail Ltd (FRL) on Thursday, while arguing in the Delhi High Court, submitted that Amazon is misrepresenting its legal rights and should not be allowed to ruin its business transaction with the retail arm of Reliance. Lead attorney Harish Salve appearing for FRL said the e-commerce giant is behaving like an East Indian company and trying to destroy competition in the market.
“… Amazon has no investment in FRL. An American company whose prorated investment is less than 10% is telling me who I should invest in. Reliance wants to buy, but I have to ask Big Brother sitting in America? … “, said Salve.
“… They think they have the right to stop FRL. That is why we have a competition law so that competition is maintained. These types of clauses destroy competition. Please stop this company from ruining this transaction, “he added.
The higher court was hearing FRL’s statement that it sought to prevent the US e-commerce company from approaching regulatory bodies such as the Competition Commission of India (ITC) against the retailer’s agreement with Reliance Retail Ventures Limited ( RRVL), a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited (RIL).
The court heard the matter for more than 4 hours and adjourned for further arguments from Amazon on Friday.
Lead attorneys Harish Salve and Darius Khambata appeared for FRL and presented various issues against the validity of the Singapore court order.
Salve added that Amazon is “misrepresenting the world through an agreement that I cannot restructure my company, save jobs, or protect the value of my creditors’ interests. ₹1800 million rupees “.
Lead attorney Darius Khambata also advocated for FRL to go into the details of the validity of the interim order.
“The first thing I want to point out is that the legal status of an emergency arbitrator is a problem in the lawsuit. The award of the emergency arbitrator is void. The momentum of the act or the misrepresentation of amazon against SEBI is based on this award. They show the award to SEBI and then reproduce certain findings. They further explain that the order is binding. They say it is binding and that it will bind you as a regulator … It is your express case before the regulator that the award is binding. It is a complete falsification of the legal position, “he said.
Khambata explained the provisions of the law on this and how there is no provision for an emergency arbitrator in Indian law.
The court will continue hearing the matter on November 20.
The dispute relates to Future’s sale of its retail, wholesale and warehousing assets to Mukesh Ambani’s RIL for ₹24,713 crore. Amazon, which owns an indirect 5% stake in Future Retail, had contested the sale in Singapore court, claiming that its 2019 investment agreement prohibits Future from selling its assets to RIL. On October 25, the Singapore court prevented Future from selling its assets to RIL.
.
