The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed proceedings within the dispute between Future Group and e-commerce giant Amazon over an almost taking into consideration the “balance of interests of both parties”.

A three-judge Bench led by judge of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana, while issuing notice, ordered the statutory authorities, including the National Company Law Tribunal, the Competition Commission of India and therefore the Securities and Exchange Board of India, to not pass any orders in matters connected to the dispute for subsequent four weeks.

The order was passed after both the longer term Group and Amazon consented.

“Parties have approached the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for vacating the Emergency Award gone by the Emergency Arbitrator and therefore the refore the arguments within the said matter are concluded and the order goes to be pronounced shortly, we expect it fit balance the interest of both the parties by staying all further proceedings before the Delhi supreme court for the nonce . Ordered accordingly. We further direct to all or any the authorities i.e. NCLT, CCI and SEBI to not pass any final order for a period of 4 weeks from today. This order has been passed with the consent of both the parties,” the Bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, recorded within the order.

During the hearing, when one among the lawyers raised apprehension about the amount of 4 weeks, the CJI indirectly drew attention to the depleted manpower in tribunals. “Do you think that any company law tribunal is during a position to require up any matter… i’m sorry to mention ,” he stated.

The stay order and subsequent freeze on any action by statutory authorities for subsequent four weeks comes as a relief for the longer term Group, which had moved the Supreme Court to remain a Delhi supreme court Single Judge’s order in March to connect the assets of Future Coupons, Future Retail and Future Group promoter Kishore Biyani.

HC directive
The supreme court had directed the longer term group firms and promoters to file their affidavits giving details of their assets for violating an Emergency Arbitrator award.

On Transfiguration , the  against the proposed ₹24,713-crore merger deal between Future Retail Limited and Reliance Retail.

A Bench of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai upheld the validity and enforceability of a Singapore-based Emergency Arbitrator (EA) award, which restrained Future Retail Limited (FRL), India’s second largest offline retailer, from going ahead with the disputed transaction.

The EA, in a gift in October last, injuncted FRL “from taking any steps to finish the disputed transaction with entities that are a part of the MDA [Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani] Group”

The apex court judgment, authored by Justice Nariman, had dismissed FRL’s argument that the “Emergency Arbitrator isn’t an arbitral tribunal” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.

‘Prohibited entities’
The ruling saw the highest court record that the MDA Group, which owns Reliance Retail, was among the “restricted persons” or “prohibited entities” with whom FRL, Future Coupons Private Limited, which owns 9.82% shareholding in FRL, and therefore the Biyanis couldn’t “deal” with. This was consistent with agreements supported which Amazon would invest money.

Despite these agreements, the Supreme Court noted that FRL entered into a transaction with the MDA Group. The deal envisaged “the amalgamation of FRL with the MDA Group, the consequential cessation of FRL as an entity, and therefore the complete disposal of its retail assets in favour of the group”.

The 103-page judgment dismissed FRL’s argument that the “Emergency Arbitrator isn’t an arbitral tribunal” under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.

Besides, Justice Nariman observed that a celebration (FRL) “cannot be heard to mention , after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, that it’ll not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling”.

The apex court had said EA orders were “an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties”.