Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 JANUARY 2021

Defining Control: Future Retail Vs. Amazon

S&R Associates
Explore more from S&R Associates

Recently a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi considered, among other substantive matters, the perennial question of "control" in the context of a proceeding initiated by Future Retail...

IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Rajat Sethi
Rajat Sethi

Recently a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi considered, among other substantive matters, the perennial question of “control” in the context of a proceeding initiated by Future Retail against Amazon.  The court reached a prima facie conclusion that “…the control that is sought to be asserted by Amazon on FRL is not permitted under the FEMA FDI Rules without government approvals…”

The above conclusion was made in the context of the following underlying facts:  Amazon.com Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) holds 49% in Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL).  In turn, FCPL holds 9.82% in Future Retail Limited (FRL).  FCPL is engaged in the business of “cash and carry wholesale trading”.  FRL is engaged in multi-brand retail. 

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

This insight/article is intended only as a general discussion of issues and is not intended for any solicitation of work. It should not be regarded as legal advice and no legal or business decision should be based on its content.

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Acquisition By An FOCC Of An Indian Company: Pricing Conditions For Resident And Non-resident Shareholders

A FOCC refers to an Indian entity that has received foreign investment and is ultimately owned or controlled by persons resident outside India. Although incorporated in India under the Companies Act, such entities are treated differently from domestically owned and controlled Indian companies for the purposes of foreign investment regulation and downstream investment structuring. Consequently, an FOCC, despite being an Indian incorporated entity, is subject to regulatory conditions applicable to foreign investment while undertaking investments into other Indian entities.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
LegaLogic
LegaLogic