Bar&Bench News Network
While Justice Raveendran was withdrawing from the RIL-RNRL dispute, Justice Markandey Katju [pictured] was doing the same in the naphtha dispute between RIL and Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The Bench, comprising Justices Katju and Ganguly, had heard and reserved the matter for judgment on September 1. Justice Katju, however, yesterday recused himself saying his wife had made investments in Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance Mutual Funds.
Both RIL and BPCL had fielded a battery of senior counsels before the Supreme Court. Reliance was represented by Senior Counsels Uday Lalit, Shanti Bhushan and Rohinton Nariman, while Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Sudhir Chandra appeared for BPCL.
The matter has been in the courts for over a decade, and in the Supreme Court for six years. Justice Katju's recusal has undone years of work, with all involved parties having to start once more at square one. Yet Shanti Bhushan, RIL's Counsel, seems surprisingly positive about the development. Speaking to Bar & Bench he said, "Rather than to have somebody bring up the matter after a few years, I think they [Justices Katju and Raveendran] have acted extremely wisely in recusing themselves. Each of them have set example for the rest of the Bench." He feels that the delay is not of consequence in this matter. "Why should one court controversy? It might be that they have recused themselves a little late. But it is better late than never," he added.
|
- 1. "Why can't Judges stop buying shares? They are priviledged ones in the whole country. They are DIFFERENT. I humbly request them not to give such excuse. Please do not treat it as CONTEMPT. WE DO RESPECT YOU.". RAJIV PATIL, MUMBAI
Related Stories
- Another Reliance dispute, another recusal; Justice B.S. Chauhan opts out of Dadri hearing
- Justice Kapadia joins Justices Raveendran and Katju; Recuses from hearing Sterlite matter
- Dispute of the day: Scrabble, Snake & Ladder, Monopoly are games - Supreme Court
- Recusals hit Delhi High Court: Justice Mudgal inherits HUL shares, recuses from HLL - Reckitt dispute
- Back to Square One? Life after an LLM
- Satyam vs Venture Global back in the Supreme Court: Salve and KKV in this key arbitration dispute
- School of Excellence wins the inaugural Christ Law School moot court, Moily calls for 15 more NLUs in 2-3 years
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










