CCI had earlier decided to hear Amazon and Future Group on January 4. CAIT filed a petition saying that CCI cannot delay deciding a matter of public interest.
Amazon had bought a 49 percent share in Witzig Advisory Services in 2018 which gave it indirect ownership of More Retail.
The Delhi High Court, on November 16, directed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to rule on revoking its approval to the Amazon-Future Coupons deal within two weeks, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) said in a statement.
CAIT had filed a public interest litigation against CCI saying that the competition regulator had issued a showcause notice to Amazon in June, but has not taken a decision yet. It was earlier reported that CCI would meet Amazon and Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) on January 4, 2022.
Independent directors of Future Retail Ltd have also written twice to CCI in the past two weeks seeking revocation of the nod given to the US giant’s 2019 investments into Future Coupons, a promoter group entity of Future Retail.
They accused Amazon of submitting “completely opposite information” while seeking approval from CCI which was “contradictory” to the US company’s own internal communications regarding its 2019 investments in Future Retail’s promoter company.
The traders’ body filed the suit asking the Delhi High Court to protect the interest of 6,000 traders who had supplied goods to Future Group amounting to about Rs 10,000 crore.
As per the independent directors’ letter to CCI, Future Retail is on the brink of bankruptcy, putting to risk at least Rs 30,000 crore of bank loans to the Future Group and the jobs of 50,000 employees of the Future group.
However, Future Retail’s deal to sell its assets to Reliance Retail has been blocked by Amazon, which claims veto rights over the Indian retail company.
CAIT in its representation to CCI had demanded that the competition regulator annul its approval because of Amazon’s misrepresentation of facts. It had pointed out that Amazon’s claim of control over Future Retail is illegal since no foreign company is allowed to own or control a multi-brand retail company.
Priyanka Sahay
