News24LAST UPDATED: Nov. 19, 2020, 5:35 p.m.
New Delhi (Anish Yande): The High Court has been hearing the case of the Amazon-Future dispute since last week. Justice Mukta Gupta has been hearing the case. The dispute between Future Retail and Amazon is centered around Future Retail conducting a sale of retail, wholesale, and warehousing assets Reliance Industries Limited. The sum for which Reliance acquired these assets was ₹24,713 crore. Amazon, through a deal finalized in 2019, had obtained a 5% stake in Future Retail.
Advocates Present Case For Future Group and Amazon:
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium is appearing on behalf of Amazon.
In his statement, Subramanium argues that Future Retail Limited considers that they aren't party to an FCPL agreement. Advocate Subramanium stated that the arbitrator has noticed that all agreements, including the FCPL agreement, were sent forward by the same legal counsels.
He questioned who exactly were the promoters in this case. Mr. Subramanium state that the process was being directed and controlled by Biyanis, owners of Future Retail. He defended Amazon's protective rights as an investor.
Earlier, The Singapore International Arbitration Centre had ruled in Amazon's favor. The Senior Advocate representing Future Retail, Harish Salve, stated that the ruling was not binding. An Indian court had to issue an order for it to be binding, Mr. Salve stated.
Harish Salve Argues on Behalf of Future Retail:
Senior Advocate Harish Salve argued on Future Retail's behalf by stating that Amazon's move was an 'anti-competition move.' He stated that the e-commerce company was attempting to restrict FRL. Mr. Salve invoked the competition law and stated that Amazon was creating a scenario where there was no competition. 'Once the competition is gone, you are free to act as per your whims.' he said.
Mr. Salve argued that Amazon had stated that there was no deal finalized between Reliance and Future Retail. He argued that Amazon had 'no rights' in Future Retail. Mr. Salve stated that despite this, Amazon was obstructing the deal.
Image Credit: Google