New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court Thursday stayed for four weeks all proceedings before the Delhi High Court related to implementation of Singapore International Arbitration Centre's (SIAC) EA award which restrained Future Retail Ltd from going ahead with its Rs 24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail.

US-based e-commerce giant Amazon, which has challenged the merger, consented to the interim order of the top court on the appeals of FRL and Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL).

Also Read | World EV Day 2021: Top 4 Electric Four-Wheelers That You Can Buy in India.

Statutory authorities like National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) have also been directed by the top court not to pass any final order related to the merger deal for next four weeks.

Before passing the consent order, a bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose said it has taken note of the Future Group's moving the SIAC seeking vacation of its Emergency Arbitrator's (EA) interim award, which went in favour of Amazon, and the verdict there has been reserved.

Also Read | Gujarat Shocker: Man Stabbed to Death In Botad District For Talking To Accused’s Girlfriend; Case Registered.

"Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the parties and particularly the fact that the parties have approached the SIAC for vacating the Emergency Award passed by the EA and the arguments in the said matter have been concluded and the order is going to be pronounced shortly, we think it fit to balance the interest of both the parties by staying all further proceedings before the Delhi High Court for the time being..," the top court said in its order.

"We further direct to all the authorities i.e. NCLT, CCI and Sebi not to pass any final order for a period of four weeks from today. This order has been passed with the consent of both the parties. List these matters after four weeks," it added.

The bench was critical that the high court, without hearing all the parties concerned, imposed cost or attachment of properties in its earlier order.

"The issue is, we must be fair. In a matter of this magnitude, if hearing takes place without giving opportunity to parties, how can one pass orders attaching property, pay cost, etc. What is this,” the bench said in its oral observations during the hearing.

The bench considered the submissions of senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for FRL and FCPL respectively, that the arbitrator at SIAC has reserved the final verdict in the case after hearing both sides and agreed to the proposed order of the bench that the proceedings before the high court can be stayed in the meanwhile.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Amazon, said the e-commerce firm was not interested in any punitive action against FRL, FCPL and their Directors and consented to passing of the order staying the high court proceedings.

“Do I have any joy in sending anybody to jail. We have no desire to send anybody to jail to suffer punitive action... But nobody can say that it will continue to remain in breach of an enforceable order,” Subramanium said.

The senior counsel for FRL and FCPL referred to the August 17 and other orders of the high court, which is seized of the plea of Amazon seeking enforcement of EA's award in its favour.

The orders directed the attachment of assets of Future group companies and its promoters Kishore Biyani and others for breach of the EA, Rohatgi said, adding that a show-cause notice for civil arrest of Biyani and other directors of Future Group has also been issued.

Salve, appearing for FRL, said the high court's single-judge order went beyond the scope of EA's award and had the effect of prejudging the issues which are pending final adjudication before the SIAC.

"I have an arbitration pending. I have taken a defence that I have not breached any agreement. The single judge says admittedly the Respondents have breached the agreement,” he said.

Rohatgi said the single-judge order was procedurally flawed as the attachment order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to FCPL and its directors.

Both sides apprised the bench about the chronology of events in the high-profile case.

The FRL and FCPL have moved the top court against the Delhi High Court order of August 17 which said that it would implement the earlier order by its single-judge restraining FRL from going ahead with the deal in pursuance of the EA's award.

The high court had also ordered attachment of properties saying that in the absence of any stay from the apex court, it has no option but to enforce the order passed by its single judge on March 18.

Amazon dragged Future Group to arbitration at Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in October last year, arguing that FRL had violated their contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance.

Kishore Biyani and 15 others including FRL and FCPL have been embroiled in a series of litigations with Amazon, an investor in FCPL, over the deal with Reliance.

On March 18, besides restraining FRL from going ahead with its deal with Reliance Retail, Justice J R Midha of the high court had imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on the Future Group and others associated with it and ordered attachment of their properties.

The high court had asked the parties to file an affidavit detailing their assets within one month and show cause as to why they should not be detained under civil prison for 3 months for violating the Singapore EA's order.

It had also asked the Future Group to place on record the details of action taken by it in connection with the Reliance deal after the EA order.

On August 6, the Supreme Court gave the verdict in favour of Amazon and held that Singapore EA's award, restraining the Rs 24,731 crore FRL-Reliance Retail merger deal, is valid and enforceable under Indian arbitration laws.

The apex court had also set aside the two orders of February 8 and March 22 of the division bench of the Delhi High Court order which had lifted the single-judge's orders staying the FRL-RRL merger.

A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, since retired, had dealt with the larger question and held that an award of an EA of a foreign country is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)