Wednesday, September 22, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Future-Reliance deal: Supreme Court begins hearing Amazon plea against stay order

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing the petition filed by Amazon against the Delhi High Court Division Bench order, which had stayed the order of the Single-Judge Bench, directing status quo on the Future-Reliance deal.

The Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice B.R. Gavai started hearing the arguments today. Earlier, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court presided by Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, while passing the order, had observed that since Future Retail Limited (FRL) is not a party to Arbitration Agreement, prima facie, group of companies doctrine can’t be invoked. It further noted that in preliminary findings, there was no reason to seek a status quo order from the Single Judge.

“Statutory authorities like SEBI cannot be restrained from proceeding in accordance with law,” the bench said. The division bench also stated that the observations made by it are only prima facie and the single judge shall not be influenced by it while passing its order.

The order was passed while the court was hearing an appeal filed by Future against an order of the single judge order directing it to maintain status quo on its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance that has been earlier objected by Amazon. The appeal filed before the Supreme Court states that the High Court “failed to appreciate that orders made under the Act [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] are appealable only if there exists a provision under the Act specifically providing for a right to appeal”.

Since the single bench order was passed under Section 17(2) of the act, and there being no provision for appeal under the said section, no no appeal would lie against the order. The petitioner further submitted “the High Court, while issuing the Impugned Interim Common Order, conveniently ignored the fact that Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 merely provides the forum for filing appeals and does not confer an independent right of appeal. Further, it is the parameters of Section 37 of the Act alone which have to be looked at in order to determine whether the appeal is maintainable or not.”

Also Read: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on mismanagement of healthcare facilities

The petitioner has further argued that the High Court while passing the impugned interim order failed to appreciate that the Single Judge Order was issued by the Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court for the limited purpose of preserving the rights of the parties till the pronouncement of the final orders and after coming to the conclusion that the Respondents have violated the directions contained in the EA Order including on the basis of the Respondents’ own unequivocal submission that would not maintain status quo.

Hence in the light of the above arguments, the petitioner has sought a stay on the impugned order of the Division bench. The appeal has been filed by Advocate Mohit Singh on behalf of Amazon.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Why aren’t international institutions so easily accessible to Indian lawyers, professors: Justice P.S. Narasimha

The Indian Society of International Law (ISIL) on Wednesday inaugurated its Post Graduation Diploma Courses for 2021-22 and also, the Convocation ceremony for its 2019-20 and 2020-21 batches.

Delhi High Court directs Delhi govt, IHBAS to explain why they didn’t constitute state mental health authority

A single-judge Delhi High Court bench was hearing a plea to set up the State Mental Health Authority (‘SMHA’) and the Mental Health Review Board (‘MHRB’) for Delhi in compliance with the obligations under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

Rs 50,000 per Covid death: NDMA recommends ex-gratia payment in affidavit to Supreme Court

Center said in an affidavit in the Supreme Court that the NDMA has recommended an amount of Rs 50,000 each as ex-gratia payment to covid-19 deceased families. The Affidavit, was filed by Govind Mohan, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, was in response to Supreme Court directions.

Supreme Court reserves verdict on plea seeking free education to every child with special needs, disabled children

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a petition seeking directions to ensure free and compulsory education to each and every Child With Special Need (CWSN)/Disabled Children by initiating the process of appointment of Special Teachers as per the Teacher Pupil ratio, which is 1:5.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.