“The learned Single Judge made certain prima facie observations on the merits of the Appellants case in the arbitration proceedings which are inconsistent with the findings of the EA order and thus gravely prejudice the appellant,” Amazon said in its application.
“The prima facie observations contained in the impugned order effectively resulted in allowing Future Retail Limited to collaterally bypass the EA order,” Amazon said.
Amazon said Future Retail has been relying on these prima facie observations to misconstrue the true import of the impugned order in an effort to mislead regulators to grant approval to the potential transactions which has forced Amazon to file an appeal to quash and set aside the prima facie observations.
Amazon said in the application, “The Learned Single Judge could not have in the same impugned order rendered any observations inconsistent with the express premises of the EA order.”
The prima facie observations relate to matters whether FRL is a party to arbitration agreement with the Appellant, whether the various agreements if read together, violate Indian laws or amount to acquisition of control over Future Retail by Amazon, whether the directors of FRL were entitled to ignore the contractual obligations of FRL, whether Future Coupons had consented to the potential transaction and whether a case of potential interference could be made against the Appellant when the potential transaction itself was in breach of a contractual agreement, Amazon said in the application before Delhi High Court.