- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Amazon requests SEBI to suspend review of Future-Reliance deal E-commerce giant Amazon has written the eighth letter to the markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) urging the regulator to suspend its review of the deal between Kishore Biyani owned Future Retail Limited (FRL) and Reliance Group. Amazon in its letter to the SEBI has intimated the markets regulator...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Amazon requests SEBI to suspend review of Future-Reliance deal
E-commerce giant Amazon has written the eighth letter to the markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) urging the regulator to suspend its review of the deal between Kishore Biyani owned Future Retail Limited (FRL) and Reliance Group.
Amazon in its letter to the SEBI has intimated the markets regulator about the admission of its appeal before the division of the Delhi High Court and has requested SEBI to suspend the review of its Future-Reliance deal. Amazon has also apprised SEBI that it has challenged the single-member bench order passed by the Delhi High Court on Dec. 21, and the validity of the prima facie observations contained in the order is presently sub-judice.
Amazon has requested SEBI not to assist Future Retail Limited in violating the process of law and disregarding the Interim Award passed by the SIAC, which is deemed to be an order of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The SIAC Interim Award has restrained the Future group firm from proceeding with the deal with RIL.
Accordingly, Amazon has urged SEBI for suspending review of the Impugned Transaction as well as the scheme involving the Impugned Transaction, and not granting any no-objection in relation to the same as well as directing the Indian Stock Exchanges not to issue any no-objection/approval letter to FRL.
In December last year, a single-member bench of the Delhi High Court rejected Future group's plea to restrain Amazon from writing to regulatory authorities about the SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) arbitral order. The court left the matter to the regulators to decide over the deal.
Consequently, a petition was filed by FRL before the High Court for an interim injunction restraining Amazon from interfering in the RIL-Future deal. Future Retail argued that the SIAC ruling would not be enforceable in India.
The Court observed that Amazon's attempt to control Future Retail through a conflation of agreements Amazon has with an unlisted unit of the Indian company will be in violation of the FEMA FDI rules.
Amazon has challenged the order of the single member bench before the division bench of the High Court.