Skip to main content

RIL-फ्यूचर डील में नया मोड़: फ्यूचर ग्रुप पर इनसाइडर ट्रेडिंग का आरोप, अमेजन ने सेबी से कहा डील को रोकी जाए

 RIL-फ्यूचर डील में नया मोड़: फ्यूचर ग्रुप पर इनसाइडर ट्रेडिंग का आरोप, अमेजन ने सेबी से कहा डील को रोकी जाए.

अमेरिका की ई-कॉमर्स कंपनी अमेजन ने कहा है कि फ्यूचर ग्रुप ने इनसाइडर ट्रेडिंग की है। इसलिए रिलायंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड (RIL) के साथ उसकी डील रोकी जाए। यह डील अगस्त में हुई थी जिसमें 3.4 अरब डॉलर में RIL ने फ्यूचर ग्रुप की कई यूनिट को खरीदा था।


2019 में हुआ था एग्रीमेंट


अमेजन ने सेबी से कहा है कि 2019 में फ्यूचर के साथ एग्रीमेंट किया था। इस एग्रीमेंट के मुताबिक, फ्यूचर ग्रुप रिटेल असेट्स को कई पार्टियों को नहीं बेच सकती है जिसमें RIL भी शामिल है। सेबी को 8 नवंबर को दिए गए पत्र में आरोप लगाया गया है कि फ्यूचर रिटेल्स ने सिंगापुर के एक मध्यस्थ कोर्ट में RIL के सेंसिटिव प्राइस का खुलासा किया था।


अमेजन के लिए बढ़ रहा है सरदर्द


भारत में अमेजन के लिए काफी सरदर्द बढ़ रहा है क्योंकि यह एंटीट्रस्ट में फंसा हुआ है। बता दें कि 25 अक्टूबर को अमेजन ने एक बयान जारी कर कहा था कि वह सिंगापुर मध्यस्थता कोर्ट का फैसला स्वीकार करता है। हालांकि उसी समय RIL ने स्टॉक एक्सचेंज में अपनी फाइलिंग में कहा कि वह ऑर्बिट्रेशन ऑर्डर को देखी है और वह फ्यूचर ग्रुप के साथ बिना कोई देरी किए डील को पूरा करने का अधिकार रखती है।


25 अक्टूबर को अमेजन ने लगाया था आरोप


अमेजन ने 25 अक्टूबर को अपने 20 पेज की फाइलिंग में कहा था कि अंबानी समूह ने प्राइस सेंसिटिव के डिटेल्स को जारी किया है। अमेजन ने कहा कि ऑर्बिट्रेशन प्रोसीडिंग में अंबानी ग्रुप पार्टी नहीं है और वह इसकी पूरी डिटेल्स केवल फ्यूचर रिटेल से ही या उसके प्रमोटर से ले सकता है। फ्यूचर समूह ने हालांकि इस मामले में आरोपों को खारिज किया है और कहा है कि जो भी आदेश है वह पब्लिक डोमेन में है।


सेलर्स के गलत डाटा का उपयोग


इससे पहले सेलर्स के डाटा का गलत तरीके से उपयोग करने का आरोप भी यूरोपियन यूनियन में अमेजन पर लगा है। अगर यह आरोप साबित हो जाता है तो अमेजन को 1.38 लाख करोड़ रुपए की फाइन भरनी पड़ सकती है। ईयू कमीशन ने कहा कि इन आरोपों को कंपनी के पास भेज दिया गया है। ऐसा कहा जा रहा है कि अमेजन ने अपने मार्केट प्लेस पर अपने खुद के लेबल वाले सामानों की बिक्री बढ़ाने के लिए थर्ड पार्टी सेलर्स के डाटा का उपयोग किया है। कमीशन ने इसी के साथ एक नई जांच भी शुरू की है।


दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने अमेजन से मांगा जवाब


दूसरी ओर उधर दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने किशोर बियानी की कंपनी फ्यूचर रिटेल लि. (FRL) की रिलायंस डील में हस्तक्षेप नहीं करने की याचिका पर अमेजन से जवाब मांगा है। फ्यूचर रिटेल ने आरोप लगाया है कि ई-कॉमर्स सेक्टर की कंपनी सिंगापुर के इंटरनेशनल आर्बिट्रेटर के एक अंतरिम आदेश के आधार पर 24,713 करोड़ रुपए के इस डील में कथित तौर पर हस्तक्षेप कर रही है।

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more