Amazon is not a shareholder, has no say in company affairs: future retailer
Future Retail, led by Kishore Biyani, told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that Amazon was not its shareholder and that it had no voice in its affairs and that the interim order approved by the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) was worthless.
the Future group and Amazon have been locked in a battle after the company based Future retail in an emergency arbitration for alleged breach of contract.
The SIAC of October 25 had passed a provisional order in favor of Amazon prohibiting Future Retail from taking any action to dispose of or encumber its assets or issue securities to secure any financing from a restricted party.
Subsequently, Amazon wrote to the market regulator. SEBI, Stock Exchanges and Competition Commission of India (CCI), urging them to take into consideration the Singapore arbitrator’s interim decision as it is a binding order, Future Retail told the higher court.
Lead Attorney Harish Salve, representing Future Retail, told Judge Mukta Gupta that the Emergency Arbitrator’s order was worthless and has no legal effect.
“I have the right to ignore it. I am subject to the Indian courts. If a gentleman sitting in Singapore says something, I can throw that order away. It is not to disrespect him. I say it as a matter of law …”, affirmed Salve.
He said that Amazon only owned shares in Future Coupons, a Future Retail shareholder, and therefore had no say in Future Retail affairs.
“Amazon is not even a minority shareholder in Future Retail. How can you be granted rights? ”He presented, adding that Amazon is asserting minority rights without taking a single share in Future Retail.
“… thousands may lose jobs, Future Retail may go out of business, but this great American giant shouldn’t be upset. Compare the figures invested by Amazon and what Dependence It is offering. That is the amount needed to rescue Future Retail from bankruptcy, “he said.
Presentations on behalf of Future Retail will continue on November 19.
The court had requested on November 10 Amazon response on Future Retail’s allegation that the e-commerce company was tampering with its Rs 24,713 crore agreement with Reliance Retail based on an interim order from a Singaporean arbitrator.
The court had also subpoenaed Amazon, Future Coupons and Reliance Retail on Future Retail’s lawsuit and asked them to submit their statements in writing within 30 days.
He had said that the question of the sustainability of the claim, raised by Amazon, would remain open. Future Coupons and their backers had also supported Future Retail’s claims and arguments.
All three, Future Retail, Future Coupons and Reliance, argued that if Amazon’s claim that it indirectly invested in Future Retail by investing in Future Coupons were accepted, it would amount to a violation of India’s foreign direct investment laws which only allow 10 percent of a foreign entity’s investment in the multi-brand retail sector.
They had also said that the group company concept cannot be applied in the present case.
Lead advocate Gopal Subramanium, who had appeared for Amazon, objected to Future Retail’s petition saying that all the arguments raised here were presented to EA, which considered and rejected them. He had said that Future Retail, being a Future Group company, would be governed by the arbitration agreement between Future Coupons and Amazon.
Furthermore, it had argued that Future Coupons has a 9.82% stake in Future Retail and since Amazon has a 49% stake in Future Coupons, the leading e-commerce company would only have half the 9.82% stake. % in his favor. In August this year, Future had reached an agreement to sell its retail, wholesale, logistics and warehousing units to Reliance.
According to SIAC’s interim order, a three-member arbitration panel must be established within 90 days (from the date of sentencing), with a judge appointed by Future and Amazon, along with a third neutral judge. .
On November 10, Amazon had told the court that it and Future Coupons had appointed their respective arbitrators.