Amazon wanted to destroy us… they have destroyed us: Future Retail tells SC

Future Retail has told the Supreme Court it was “hanging by a thread”, as only 374 of its stores remained with it after over 830 shops shut down on the lapse of lease due to non-payment of rent.

“Amazon wanted to destroy us… they have destroyed us,” senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Future Retail, told the court on April 1, referring to the litigation kicked off by the American firm to block the ₹27,000-crore asset sale deal between Future Retail and Reliance Retail, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries.

The court was hearing Amazon’s plea to restrain Future Retail from alienating its retail assets until arbitration between it and the Kishore Biyani-owned group concluded.

“This court and other courts were repeatedly told by Future group that there will be no transfer of any assets and the proceedings before the NCLT should be allowed to go on,” senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, representing Amazon, told a bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana. “Your Lordships have recorded this undertaking in your order.”

Future Retail said it had not affected the transfer of its stores and the eviction action was initiated by the landlords.

“We have not breached anything,” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, arguing for Future Coupons, said. “Landlords are bound to take action if rent has not been paid… are we supposed to resist landlords when lakhs of rupees of rent remain unpaid?”

Future Retail’s accounts have been frozen by the lenders after they were declared non-performing assets and no payments, even towards rent, could be made, he said.

Future Retail’s lapsed leases were now in favour of Reliance and it was unfathomable that over 830 stores could be let go without any attempt to save them, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, arguing for Amazon, said.

Responding to the allegation, Rohtagi questioned how could an injunction be sought against landlords and the new tenants?

Salve said Reliance couldn’t possibly be directed or refrained from doing something in the case since it was not a party to the dispute in the court.

The SC asked Amazon how could interim relief be granted when it involved restraining alienation of stores and the landlords owning the shops were not parties before the court.

A consortium of banks that are owed money by Future Retail urged the court not to pass an interim order that could prejudice the interests and rights of the lenders.

The case will next be heard on April 4.