<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday, pointing at tactics adopted to drag the litigation, told the Amazon counsel that it is trying to undermine the understanding of the top court in connection with its arguments and rejected its request to file seven-page written submissions in the Future Group case.</p>.<p>The apex court, last week, reserved its order on whether NCLT [National Company Law Tribunal] proceedings can be permitted for a proposed deal between Future Retail and Reliance, and declined to pass interim orders to stop banks from declaring Future Retail's accounts as NPAs [Non-Performing Assets]. The top court said it will also pass orders whether Future Retail can be provided more time to reach a resolution with its 27 lenders, having a total exposure of Rs 17,000 crore, to the company.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/business/business-news/future-vs-amazon-sc-sets-aside-all-delhi-hc-orders-asks-for-fresh-decision-on-merit-1076814.html" target="_blank">Future vs Amazon: SC sets aside all Delhi HC orders, asks for fresh decision on merit</a></strong> </p>.<p>On Tuesday, the Amazon counsel sought permission to file a seven-page written submission in the matter, which irked a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana. The Chief Justice told the Amazon counsel this is a tactic to drag on a luxury litigation between parties and queried if the counsel was trying to undermine the understanding of the court in understanding its arguments.</p>.<p>The bench told the Amazon counsel that the order is in the process and now it wants to file a seven-page written submission and following this practice, Future should also be given a chance to file counter written submission in the matter. Disagreeing with this practice, the Chief Justice, "Where is this going to end?... better not to hear these luxury litigations."</p>.<p>Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, representing Future Retail, submitted before the bench that this is an unfair practice and opposed the request made by Amazon. Viswanathan said Amazon should have requested for filing of written submission on the day, when the top court reserved its order in the matter.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday, pointing at tactics adopted to drag the litigation, told the Amazon counsel that it is trying to undermine the understanding of the top court in connection with its arguments and rejected its request to file seven-page written submissions in the Future Group case.</p>.<p>The apex court, last week, reserved its order on whether NCLT [National Company Law Tribunal] proceedings can be permitted for a proposed deal between Future Retail and Reliance, and declined to pass interim orders to stop banks from declaring Future Retail's accounts as NPAs [Non-Performing Assets]. The top court said it will also pass orders whether Future Retail can be provided more time to reach a resolution with its 27 lenders, having a total exposure of Rs 17,000 crore, to the company.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/business/business-news/future-vs-amazon-sc-sets-aside-all-delhi-hc-orders-asks-for-fresh-decision-on-merit-1076814.html" target="_blank">Future vs Amazon: SC sets aside all Delhi HC orders, asks for fresh decision on merit</a></strong> </p>.<p>On Tuesday, the Amazon counsel sought permission to file a seven-page written submission in the matter, which irked a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana. The Chief Justice told the Amazon counsel this is a tactic to drag on a luxury litigation between parties and queried if the counsel was trying to undermine the understanding of the court in understanding its arguments.</p>.<p>The bench told the Amazon counsel that the order is in the process and now it wants to file a seven-page written submission and following this practice, Future should also be given a chance to file counter written submission in the matter. Disagreeing with this practice, the Chief Justice, "Where is this going to end?... better not to hear these luxury litigations."</p>.<p>Senior advocate K V Viswanathan, representing Future Retail, submitted before the bench that this is an unfair practice and opposed the request made by Amazon. Viswanathan said Amazon should have requested for filing of written submission on the day, when the top court reserved its order in the matter.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>