Bar&Bench News Network
Two of the judges on Reliance matters have recently recused themselves on the grounds of conflict of interest. With the ownership of Reliance shares becoming a matter of some inconvenience to sitting Judges of the Supreme Court, Bar & Bench takes a look at the data revealed by the recent disclosure of assets by 21 Judges of the SC.
The long-running dispute between the Ambani brothers does not appear to have affected the confidence of the judges in the profitability of Reliance enterprises. Out of the 21 sitting Justices, 20 declared their assets on November 2. Justice B.N. Agrawal, who retired on October 15, also voluntarily published his assets on the Supreme Court website.
A study of the published list of assets shows that 16 of the 21 Judges invest in the stock markets directly or indirectly through Mutual Funds and other forms of investment.
All of the judges with Reliance stocks appear to be long-time shareholders; the pattern of their holding indicates that most of them were holding these shares prior to the demerger of Reliance Industries Limited into Reliance Communication, RNRL, Reliance Energy (which later became Reliance Infrastructure) and Reliance Capital.
Justices R.V. Raveendran, Dalveer Bhandari, D.K. Jain, V.S. Sirpurkar, Aftab Alam, Mukundakam Sharma, H.L. Dattu and B.S. Chauhan have equity investments in both the brothers' companies. Justice Panchal holds an equity investment only in Mukesh Ambani-controlled Reliance Petroleum. Justices Katju and Ganguly hold mutual fund investments through the Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance Capital. Justices Kapadia, Tarun Chatterjee, R.M. Lodha, Deepak Verma, Cyriac Joseph and B.N. Agrawal hold stocks and mutual funds of various other financial institutions.
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, along with Justices Altamas Kabir, Sudershan Reddy, Sathasivam and G.S. Singhvi do not hold shares or stocks in any company whatsoever.
Whatever may be the case, Reliance investments have returned more than 100 percent in the last 5 years, and Reliance stocks remain a good investment decision.
|
- 1. "I think, it would be too much to ask any one not to invest its own money for his/her future. Judiciary can be no exception. It is just that when one has too many shares running into several thousands or their investments run in lakhs that should be cause of conflict of interest. Having 100 or 200 shares may mean nothing but if its something like 10,000 or more or the amount runs into lakhs then it means a lot. Conflict of interest should come when the stakes are substantial and not some petty amount. ". Ravi Avasthi, Delhi
Related Stories
- Trilegal expands Capital Markets practice with A&O Partner
- "Judges have nothing to fear, nothing to hide" says Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar
- Guwahati High Court appoints contract judges to handle backlog
- AZB conclude IL&FS-Maytas documentation and Reliance stake sale
- Reliance Infratel files DRHP again, retains same legal team
- Allahabad HC Judges refuse to disclose assets
- Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts to get additional Judges
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)










