– Arbitration ship has sailed in the present case and the suit could now not be maintained
– The parties are bound by the instructions of the Emergency Court.
– All arguments raised before the Court were heard and decided by the Emergency Arbitrator in detail after considering Indian law.
– The FRL SHA, FCPL SHA and the Share Subscription Agreement succeeded each other and there was a single integrated transaction.
– FRL is subject to the doctrine of the Group of Companies.
– The autonomy of the parties is the backbone of arbitration and, in this case, the parties chose to adopt the SIAC Rules as rules of engagement, which provided for an Emergency Arbitration.
– By virtue of Section 2 (8) of the Arbitration Act, the SIAC Rules are included in the arbitration agreement and therefore, it cannot be said that emergency arbitration is not recognized.
– Part I does not contain any mandatory provision to overrule an emergency Referee.
– When the parties to an arbitration agreement agree to an Emergency Arbitration, there can be no inherent lack of jurisdiction. The emergency grant is binding until it is revoked.
– As an investor, Amazon has certain protection rights but did not have “control” over FCPL or FRL.
– The promoters, that is, Biyanis, were common to FCPL and FRL and exercised control and rights over them. It was agreed that FRL’s retail assets will not be sold without the consent of FCPL. FCPL, in turn, needed Amazon’s consent.
– FCPL’s 9.82% shares in FRL would be meaningless if the retail business went away.
– All transactions and agreements complied with FEMA and FDI laws.
– There can be no wrongful interference in contractual obligations when the contract itself is not valid.
.
