Thread by @BQthefineprint

Delhi High Court resumes hearings in the Future Group vs Amazon matter.

Recap of Day 4 arguments: bit.ly/2IPWjgQ

Argument of inherent lack of jurisdiction [of the Emergency Arbitrator] is deeply flawed, says Subramanium.

Recap of Day 4 arguments: bit.ly/2IPWjgQ

Third principle missed by Mr Khambata is that courts and arbitrators can determine their own jurisdiction, says Subramanium.

There's a difference between exercise of jurisdiction and inherent lack of jurisdiction, says Subramanium.

An Emergency Arbitrator, by consent of parties, can be a sole arbitrator and will fall under the definition of 'arbitral tribunal', Subramanium says.

Future Retail wants an injunction against the arbitration process, Subramanium says.

Under SIAC Rules, an Emergency Arbitrator is treated as an Arbitrator, Subramanium says.

Award of the Emergency Arbitrator is jurisdictionally competent, Subramanium says.

To say that Amazon is not interested in saving Future Retail is contrary to the record, Subramanium says.

There are two schedules to FCPL shareholders' agreement. There's another list besides restricted persons. It's called 'company barred persons', Subramanium says.

To suddenly say I'm a listed company and I don't care where the money comes from is incorrect, Subramanium says.

There's a warranties clause under both FCPL and FRL shareholders' agreements, Subramanium says.

Subramanium responds to Future Retail's assertion that if all agreements are conflated, it will lead to Amazon exerting 'control' over it.

Future Group vs Amazon: Delhi High Court reserves its order.

Amazon responds to Future Retail’s ‘prejudicial comments’; says it’s not East India Company. @arpanc_
bit.ly/35ODh3e