In a major victory for e-commerce company Amazon, the Supreme Court on Friday said that arbitration restraining the Future Group’s deal with Reliance Industries (RIL) was valid and enforceable under Indian laws. 

Last week, the apex court had reserved its judgment in the case about the ruling by a Singapore tribunal, restraining Future from going ahead with its merger with Reliance. 

A bench, headed by Justice R F Nariman, dealt with the larger question and held that an award of an Emergency Arbitrator (EA) of a foreign country was enforceable under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act despite the fact that the term EA was not used in arbitration laws here. 

“The EA Order is an order within Section 17 (1) and can be enforced under Section 17 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,” the apex court said. 

Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings and Future Retail (FRL) have been embroiled in a bitter legal fight over the Future-Reliance deal, and the US-based company had sought in the apex court that the EA award was valid and enforceable. 

The verdict by the top court comes almost a year after Reliance Retail had announced that it would be buying the Future Group’s retail, wholesale and logistics and warehousing businesses by way of a slump sale for Rs 24,713 crore in August 2020. 

Subsequently, Amazon had FRL into an emergency arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) over an alleged breach of contract by the Future Group. 

Amazon had first filed a plea before a single judge of the Delhi High Court for enforcement of the October 25, 2020 EA award by SIAC, restraining FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance Retail. 

On February 8, 2021, the division bench of the Delhi High Court had stayed the single judge’s direction to FRL and various statutory authorities to maintain a status quo on the mega deal. The interim direction was passed on FRL’s appeal, challenging the February 2 order of the single judge. 

The high court’s division bench had said that it was staying the single judge’s order as FRL was not a party to the Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) between Amazon and Future Coupons (FCPL), and that the US e-commerce company was not a party to the deal between FRL and Reliance Retail. 

The high court’s division bench had also declined Amazon’s request to keep its order in abeyance for a week so that it could explore appropriate remedies.