HomeBusinessDelhi High Court Rejects Future Group's Plea On Ending Arbitration Proceedings With...

Delhi High Court Rejects Future Group’s Plea On Ending Arbitration Proceedings With Amazon Before SIAC

The Kishore Biyani-led company said it meant enforcing of rights in contravention of the Competition Act, 2002

According to court news, The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by the Future Group challenging an order passed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rejecting its plea seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings with e-commerce giant Amazon.

The bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties. The arbitration proceedings may continue uninfluenced by any of the findings or contentions raised.

The bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar has clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties, but had only sought clarification from various parties. The arbitration proceedings may continue uninfluenced by any of the findings or contentions raised in this judgment. The Hon’ble court has described this matter as one of ‘first impression’. It is hoped that the controversy may be resolved at an early date through the arbitration proceedings and that such a course of action shall not become necessary. This bench comprising Hon’ble Justice C Hari Shankar clarified the bench has not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties. The arbitration proceedings may proceed uninfluenced by any of the findings or contentions raised in this writ petition.

The Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on merits and controversy between the parties to the arbitration proceedings, but had only decided to allow arbitration proceedings to continue unaffected by the findings or contentions raised.

Future Group had moved the court In October arguing there was a “stark abdication of jurisdiction” by the arbitral tribunal, which relegated all issues to a final hearing despite the Supreme Court order to “pass the orders” on the termination applications. The plea stated that the tribunal acted in a “pre-determined manner.”

The plea further read, “This approach has rendered the hearings on the termination applications an exercise in redundancy. It is the same arguments and pleadings, which will be regurgitated in the final hearing putting the petitioners to considerable prejudice in terms of cost and time.”

Future Group sought quashing of the impugned order pleading that if immediate relief was not granted, it would be forced to continue participating in the arbitration proceedings. It claimed that it was based on agreements that were “non-est in law.”

Future Group seeks quashing of the impugned order which it claims are based on agreements that are “non-est in law” and not binding. Future Group claimed that if immediate relief was not granted, it would be forced to continue participating in the arbitration proceedings in this case.”

Future Group has sought immediate relief from the Court, arguing that it would be forced to continue participating in arbitration proceedings if the preliminary issues were not dismissed.

The Future Group is an Indian conglomerate that specializes in food products. In November, the company moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking interim relief and allowing proceedings to restart before the arbitral tribunal. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had then expressed concern that Future Group was trying to defeat its order and intending to stall the proceedings before the tribunal.

The plea added, “This apart, to continue these arbitration proceedings would be to perpetuate an illegality and allow for the enforcing of rights in direct contravention of the Competition Act, 2002.”

Even as the order was reserved in Future’s plea, in November, Amazon moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking interim relief and allowing proceedings to restart before the arbitral tribunal.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had then expressed concern that Future Group was trying to defeat its order and intending to stall the proceedings before the tribunal.

Ghiselle Rousso
Ghiselle Roussohttps://www.runnergear.online
Oliver James is a UK-based professional blogger, content writer, and content marketer who writes about travel and tourism, finance, real estate, and other topics on his blog. Passionate about writing, traveling, and getting the best deal on everything he buys, Oliver also writes for customers and helps them publicize their products, and services in the US and UK markets. He is a traveler who has visited over 35 countries and loves his job because it gives him the opportunity to find stories, experiences, and places which he can share with his readers. Oliver James is a professional blogger, content marketer, traveler, and electronics enthusiast. He started blogging in 2016 and has become a contributing writer for several blogs, including Android Authority and Elecpros. Oliver has also published his own informational books with Kindle Direct Publishing on subjects like Flappy Bird and Google Cardboard. Also Read: > all inclusive holidays > Lumber Takeoff Services Base APK
RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

How do I protect my brand

Dermal fillers Treatment

Recent Comments