Future Retail-Reliance Merger: SC Allows Future Retail To Move HC To Seek Resumption Of NCLT Proceedings

In its plea, Future Retail stressed that the livelihood of 22,000 employees of FRL are impacted while the continuation of the NCLT proceedings will not have any adverse affect on Amazon in any manner

Supreme Court of India | File Image

New Delhi: In a crucial direction from the Supreme Court, Future Retail has been allowed to move Delhi High Court to seek permission for continuation of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) related to the sanction for its Rs 27,513-crore deal with Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd.

A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli said: "We grant liberty to FRL to approach the High Court by filing an application seeking continuation of the NCLT proceedings beyond the 8th Stage (Meeting of Shareholders and creditors)."

Stressing for the continuation of the NCLT proceedings, it asked the single judge of the high court to hear all the contentions raised by both the parties in this regard and pass appropriate order for the proceedings beyond the stage mentioned at serial no 8 and other regulatory approvals expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observations made by the top court, according to news agency IANS.

The scheme has to go through 15 stages for final approval.

What is the plea of Future Retail?

Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Future Retail, argued that the proceedings before the NCLT have reached the stage listed at serial no 8 (meeting of the shareholders and creditors).

In its plea, he said that his client is incurring expenditure every day and there is an imminent threat of insolvency and any delay in the proceedings before the NCLT will have serious ramifications and virtually render the agreement between FRL-Reliance group redundant.

Besides, he stressed that the livelihood of 22,000 employees of FRL are also impacted while the continuation of the NCLT proceedings will not have any adverse affect on Amazon in any manner.

On the other hand, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium from Amazon’s side submitted that up till now FRL has conducted the NCLT proceedings in contravention of the order of the Emergency Arbitrator as well as the enforcement order passed by the single judge of the Delhi High Court.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of Future Coupons Pvt Ltd, submitted that the Competition Commission of India has revoked the initial Amazon-AFCPL share purchase, which effectively nullifies the arbitration. He added these facts have bearing on the continuation of the proceedings which needs to form a part of the consideration and he is willing to argue on the aforesaid consideration before the high court in remand.

Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, appearing for Amazon, submitted that FRL and FCPL are not entitled to any interim relief as they have not challenged the initial order of the Emergency Arbitrator, which is binding on them.

(With agency inputs)