{"id":140461,"date":"2021-02-04T20:02:21","date_gmt":"2021-02-04T14:32:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=140461"},"modified":"2021-02-05T11:13:12","modified_gmt":"2021-02-05T05:43:12","slug":"amazon-future-delhi-hc-to-continue-hearing-plea-challenging-order-against-future-group-tomorrow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/amazon-future-delhi-hc-to-continue-hearing-plea-challenging-order-against-future-group-tomorrow\/","title":{"rendered":"Amazon-Future: Delhi HC to continue hearing plea challenging order against Future Group tomorrow"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Delhi High Court<\/a> on Thursday heard Future Retail Ltd and Amazon at length on the plea filed by Future Retail Ltd challenging the order passed by single-judge directing it to maintain status quo on its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance that has been earlier objected by Amazon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A division bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted, “All these things were not presented before the Single Judge,” while hearing the submissions made by Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Future Retail. The bench will continue hearing the matter on February 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Salve stated that Amazon entered into an agreement with Future Coupons limited running the business of loyalty coupons. To develop the business, developing the business of Future Coupons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appearing for the respondents submitted, “If Your Lordship hears the matter on maintainability, Your Lordship may save time.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n Salve continued his arguments added, <\/p>\n\n\n\n “That is where Reliance puts up- you sell us your shops, you sell your business. Where Reliance will take over all the shops and take over all the liabilities, 25000 people\u2019s employment will be saved…This deal was done.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Salve further submitted, “On behalf of FRL we argued, we had an agreement with FCPL and Biyanis. I don\u2019t have any agreement with Amazon, that is why there is no arbitration. Amazon says I have an agreement with FCPL, FCPL has an agreement with FRL.” Whereas the single judge bench observed that these are single economic transactions I\u2019ll consider all of them together, it becomes a single integrated transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Salve contended,<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Interestingly, my suit simply was Amazon has no rights against me, if you merge the two agreements it\u2019ll lead to illegality. Our submission that these two agreements cannot be merged was upheld. The Conclusion of the Single-Judge is directly contrary to the Arbitrator.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n