Future Retail Limited (FRL) has cited its ongoing legal battle with Amazon as a hurdle in its monetisation plans.

Biz Bazaar outlet
Money Law Wednesday, January 26, 2022 - 11:48
Written by  IANS

Future Retail Ltd (FRL) on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking direction to restrain its lenders from declaring the company as a non-performing asset (NPA), in connection with a default of nearly Rs 3,500 crore. In a petition seeking early hearing, the FRL has urged the top court to pass a direction to restrain "Respondent Nos 2-28 (lenders) from declaring the Petitioner No 1 (FRL) as a Non-Performing Asset." 

It has cited its ongoing legal battle with Amazon as a hurdle in its monetisation plans. The FRL, earlier this month, had said that it missed the due date for the payment of Rs 3,494.56 crore to banks and lenders.

The FRL, in its plea, requested the apex court to issue a direction to its lenders to extend the review period of 30 days under the framework agreement and also provide some relaxation in connection with the timeframe. 

Seeking some more time on loan repayment, FRL urged the top court to "extend the timeline stipulated under the Framework Agreement for monetisation of the Small Format Stores in line with the minutes of the meeting dated January 1, 2022".

On January 11, the Future Group submitted before the Supreme Court that Future Retail Ltd will sink with its 30,000 employees, if its over Rs 24,000 crore with Reliance Retail fails to reach fruition.

The Future group, in August 2020, announced a Rs 24,713-crore deal with Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Ltd. In 2020, Amazon invoked arbitration after Future Retail announced its asset sale deal with Reliance Industries Ltd's wholly-owned subsidiary, Reliance Retail.

In December last year, the Competition Commission of India had imposed a penalty of Rs 202 crore on Amazon and suspended its approval for the e-tailer's deal with Future Coupons, a promoter firm of the group's public listed company Future Retail Ltd, seeking more information. The US e-commerce giant has challenged the order at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.