Kishore Biyani-led Future Retail Ltd (FRL) moved the Delhi High Court on Wednesday against its single judge order directing the company to maintain status quo in relation to its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail, which has been objected to by US-based e-commerce giant Amazon.
FRL's appeal was mentioned before a Joint Registrar of the high court who allowed it to be listed for hearing on Thursday, a lawyer associated with the case said.
Justice J R Midha on Tuesday said the court was satisfied that an immediate interim order was required to be passed to protect the rights of Amazon.
"Respondents (FRL) and other respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today at 4:49 PM till pronouncement of the reserved order," the judge had said.
Amazon has approached the high court seeking direction to order enforcement of the award by Singapore's Emergency Arbitrator (EA) restraining FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail.
Amazon has sought to restrain Kishore Biyani-led Future Group from taking any steps to complete the transaction with entities that are a part of the Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani (MDA) Group.
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC, in its plea, has also sought detention of the Biyanis, directors of FCPL and FRL and other related parties in civil prison and attaching of their properties for alleged "wilful disobedience" of the emergency arbitrator's order.
The Delhi High Court said on Tuesday it was clear that the October 25, 2020, order of the emergency arbitrator passing the award was enforceable and appealable under the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Future Group and Amazon have been locked in a battle after the US-based company took Future Retail into the emergency arbitration over alleged breach of a contract between them.
The three domestic firms — Future Retail, Future Coupons and Reliance — have however contended before the high court that if Amazon's claim — hat it indirectly invested in FRL by investing in FCL — was accepted then it would amount to a violation of Indian foreign direct investment laws which permit only 10% investment by a foreign entity in the multi-brand retail sector.