Bar&Bench News Network
It has been over two months since the Reliance matter was finally heard. The dispute between Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) regarding the Krishna-Godavari basin saw several high profile lawyers and senior counsels arguing.
The Anil Ambani-controlled RNRL is seeking a supply of gas from the D6 block in the Krishna-Godavari eastern offshore fields of the Mukesh Ambani-controlled RIL at $2.34 (Rs. 112) per MMBTU (Million Metric British Thermal Units). RIL rejected the demand on the ground that the Government approved rate is $4.2 (Rs. 201) per MMBTU.
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice P. Sathasivam and had to be reconstituted since Justice Raveendran recused himself from hearing the matter as his daughter was working with AZB & Partners’ Bangalore office. The Supreme Court Bench started hearing the matter on October 20 and was reconstituted with Justice Sudershan Reddy on November 5.
AZB had advised Mukesh Ambani during his split from his younger brother and was instrumental in finalizing the family MoU disputed before the Supreme Court. News reports indicate that the value of the dispute is between $17 Billion (Rs. 81,600 crore) to $75 Billion (Rs. 3,60,000 crore).
Harish Salve, representing RIL, Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran representing the Government and Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohatgi representing RNRL, were locked in heated arguments till the conclusion of the hearing. Solicitor General, Gopal Subramaniam filed an affidavit on behalf of the Government. In the middle, there were reports that Parasaran might quit if the Government brought on board Senior Counsel P.P. Rao, which were later clarified as false.
The Bench had reserved the matter for judgment in December just before the winter vacations commenced. The matter has not been listed any further, while the country awaits with bated breath for a final conclusion on this matter.
|
- 1. "ITS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT SC HAS RESERVED ITS VERDICT FOR LONG, I WOULD RECALL CERTAIN CASES AGAINST WHOM WAIT FOR RELIANCE DISPUTE VERDICT WOULD SEEM NEGLIBIBLE, FIRSTLY THE APEX COURT HAS RESERVED ITS JUDGMENT ON VALIDITY OF NARCO ANALYSIS TESTS SINCE JAN 2008, OVER TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED, THEN IS THE ISSUE OF APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF GOVERNORS SINCE OCTOBER LAST, THEN IS THE MOST INFAMOUS “ SINGLE DIRECTIVE “ CASE CONCERNING PROCEEDING AGAINST SENIOR BUREAURCRATS ONLY AFTER GETTING PRIOR APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, I AM SURE EVERYONE WOULD BE SURPRISED TO READ THAT SC VERDICT ON IT HAS BEEN RESERVED SINCE OCTOBER, 2004, THERE MAY BE SCORES OF OTHER CASES, IDEALLY THERE SHOULD BE CERTAIN TIME SCHEDULE WITHIN WHICH VERDICTS RESERVED MUST BE PRONOUNCED, BUT WOULD THAT HAPPEN, I AM APPREHENSIVE THAT SOMEBODY MAY PROCEED AGAINST ME ON CONTEMPT CHARGES AS I M QUESTIONING THE HITHERTO FOLLOWED JUDICIAL METHODOLOGY, ". HEMANT KUMAR ADVOCATE, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA
- 2. "when is the verdict? i am waiting for the verdict day....". Kiran, Cochin
- 3. "I am not a law expert but one thing I am sure of is that every government agency including judiciary is ultimately responsible to the people for its functioning and therefore transparency is the least that can be expected. RTI is only a tool but why do such agencies require the whip of RTI to be transparent. All companies listed in the stock exchange are liable to submit quarterly statement of its financial matters which is available for the public to see on the net or otherwise. Why can't there be a similar ruling for these agencies as well,whereby they submit the details of the work done by them, pending issues, resolution date etc. on monthly, quarterly or annual basis. I am sure the Hon'ble Supreme Court will have its justified reasons for reserving a verdict but then there should also be a boundation to release the verdict within some stipulated time frame. ". Virender S Rawat, Delhi
Related Stories
- The Reliance Saga: Day 2 in the SC
- The Reliance Saga: Day 3 in the SC
- Reliance saga, Day 4: Salve tests Jethmalani's patience
- Reliance Saga, Days 5 and 6: Jethmalani accuses Government of siding with RIL as Salve concludes arguments
- Reliance Saga, Act II, Part I: Salve, Jethmalani squabble, ASG threatens to quit
- Reliance saga: And the show will go on, till November 17
- 10 and counting... Supreme Court admits Ram Murti's petition against 377 judgement
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
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)










