Illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction: Amazon moves Supreme Court against Delhi High Court stay on Future- Reliance deal status quo

Amazon has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the implementation of status quo direction passed by single-judge of the High Court with respect to the Future- Reliance deal (Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail). .The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal preferred by Future Retail (FRL) against the status quo order passed by a single-judge Bench. .Amazon has contended that the Division Bench order is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being without jurisdiction. .In its Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, Amazon has asserted that the Division Bench of the High Court could not have heard a letters patent appeal from an order passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act. ."..the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate the fact that FRL could not have preferred the Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby challenging an order issued under Section 17(2) of the Act.".It is also stated that the Division Bench hastily passed the impugned order without waiting for the detailed order of the single-judge and without appreciating the “Group of Companies” doctrine.."It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, while issuing the Impugned Interim Common Order, failed to appreciate that the Single Judge Order was issued by the Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court for the limited purpose of preserving the rights of the parties till the pronouncement of the final orders and after coming to the conclusion that the Respondents have violated the directions contained in the EA Order including on the basis of the Respondents’ own unequivocal submission that would not maintain status quo," the plea states. .Amazon has further argued that FRL has acted in complete disregard of the rule of law and procedure prescribed by law and that a collateral challenge to an Emergency Award cannot be permitted. .The single-judge passed the status quo order in Amazon's plea seeking enforcement of the Emergency Award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act..While reserving its order in Amazon's interim plea to stop Kishore Biyani's Future Group companies and officials from relying on approvals given by statutory authorities in relation to the deal, the single-judge had directed Future Retail Ltd to maintain status quo in relation to its deal with Reliance..This order was stayed by the Division Bench earlier this week. .The Divison Bench had opined that FRL was not a party to an arbitration agreement with Amazon and prima facie the "Group of Companies" doctrine could not be invoked. .Further observing that there was no reason to seek a status quo order from the single-judge, the Division Bench stated that statutory authorities like SEBI, CCI should not be restrained from "proceeding in accordance with law".