Emergency arbitration and FEMA control rights in FRL dispute: court upheld prima facie suit maintainability but refused interim injunction.

A Delhi HC decision on an India-seated arbitration upheld prima facie maintainability of FRL's civil suit and treated the emergency arbitrator mechanism as valid where the parties had adopted SIAC Rules, holding that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not by itself invalidate emergency interim relief. It further found FRL's 29 August 2020 board resolution prima facie not void or contrary to statute. On the combined reading of the transaction documents, Amazon's veto and consent rights were held prima facie to amount to control over FRL and to raise a FEMA FDI Rules issue, and FRL also made out a prima facie case of tortious interference. However, interim injunction was refused because the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not justify relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was prima facie maintainable despite the arbitration proceedings and the challenge being directed to the legal status of the Emergency Arbitrator; (ii) Whether the Emergency Arbitrator lacked legal status under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the resulting interim order was without jurisdiction; (iii) Whether the resolution dated 29 August 2020 of FRL was void or contrary to any statutory provision; (iv) Whether the combined reading of the FRL SHA, FCPL SHA and FCPL SSA resulted in Amazon exercising control over FRL in breach of the FEMA FDI Rules; (v) Whether FRL had made out a prima facie case of tortious interference; (vi) Whether FRL was entitled to interim injunction.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was prima facie maintainable despite the arbitration proceedings and the challenge being directed to the legal status of the Emergency Arbitrator.

Analysis: The suit was founded on a distinct cause of action, namely alleged unlawful interference by Amazon in the proposed FRL-Reliance transaction. The objection that the same points had been raised before the Emergency Arbitrator did not bar civil court jurisdiction. A collateral inquiry into the legal status of the Emergency Arbitrator was also permissible to the extent necessary to decide whether Amazon was relying on unlawful means in its representations to regulators.

Conclusion: The suit was held prima facie maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Emergency Arbitrator lacked legal status under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the resulting interim order was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The arbitration clause adopted Indian law as the governing law and SIAC Rules as the curial law. The Court held that party autonomy permitted the adoption of SIAC procedures, including emergency interim relief, so long as they did not conflict with mandatory provisions or public policy. The SIAC Rules themselves preserved recourse to court relief, and the statutory scheme did not prohibit emergency arbitration in the manner argued. The Emergency Arbitrator therefore was not treated as a forum lacking inherent authority merely because Part I did not expressly name such a procedure.

Conclusion: The Emergency Arbitrator was prima facie not coram non judice, and the interim order was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the resolution dated 29 August 2020 of FRL was void or contrary to any statutory provision.

Analysis: A shareholders' agreement does not override a company's articles or statutory obligations, but a breach of contractual arrangements is different from a resolution being void in law. FRL's board resolution was passed in the context of severe financial distress and with a view to protect the company and its stakeholders. No material showed that the resolution violated FRL's articles or any statutory prohibition, and the Court noted the consent document placed on record by FRL.

Conclusion: The resolution was held prima facie neither void nor contrary to statutory provisions or FRL's articles.

Issue (iv): Whether the combined reading of the FRL SHA, FCPL SHA and FCPL SSA resulted in Amazon exercising control over FRL in breach of the FEMA FDI Rules.

Analysis: The Court applied the regulatory concept of control as including de jure and de facto control, including positive power over management or policy decisions. On a prima facie reading of the intertwined agreements, Amazon's rights went beyond mere investment protection and extended into wide consent and veto rights affecting FRL's significant decisions. Those rights were found, at least prima facie, to cross the line from protective rights into control.

Conclusion: The combined arrangement was held prima facie to amount to control over FRL and to raise a prima facie conflict with the FEMA FDI Rules.

Issue (v): Whether FRL had made out a prima facie case of tortious interference.

Analysis: The Court treated the FRL-Reliance arrangement as a valid subsisting transaction for present purposes and held that Amazon's communications to regulators could constitute unlawful means if they were based on incorrect assertions about the Emergency Arbitrator, the board resolution, and the alleged control structure. On that basis, the ingredients of unlawful interference were made out at least prima facie, though final determination would require evidence.

Conclusion: A prima facie case of tortious interference was made out.

Issue (vi): Whether FRL was entitled to interim injunction.

Analysis: Although a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience did not clearly favour FRL. Both sides had already approached regulators, and any restraint on Amazon would also prejudice its claimed rights. The Court further held that the regulatory authorities should examine the competing claims in accordance with law. Irreparable harm and comparative convenience did not justify the extraordinary interim relief sought.

Conclusion: FRL was not entitled to interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The application for interim relief failed, and the parties were left to pursue their respective remedies before the statutory and regulatory authorities in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In an India-seated international commercial arbitration where the parties have expressly adopted institutional rules permitting emergency interim relief, such emergency arbitration is not invalid merely because Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly refer to it, provided the procedure is not contrary to mandatory statutory requirements or public policy.

---