RNRL submits parts of Ambani pact to HC

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Related Articles

RCoM net profit up 86% at Rs 1,304 crRCoM net profit up 86% at Rs 1,304 crREL to transfer infra projects to subsidiaryReliance Capital Q2 net up 20% at 201.28 cr

The counsel for Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL), Ram Jethmalani, on Wednesday submitted relevant parts of the MoU (memorandum of understanding) between the Ambani brothers at the time of the demerger of the Reliance empire to the Bombay High Court along with an affidavit under copy to Mukesh-owned Reliance Industries (RIL).

Jethmalani told the court that the portions of the MoU are only to enable the court to pronounce the judgement on the gas dispute between the Ambani brothers. The divisional bench comprising Justice KK Tated and JN Patel at the High Court are hearing the case related to the dispute over the gas supply agreement between RIL and RNRL. The court will now resume the hearing on October 15. The court will hear the case also on Saturday, October 18, before it shuts for Diwali vacation. Justice Patel added that the court would like to complete the hearing before the Diwali vacation next week and use the vacation for drafting the judgement.

However, Harish Salve, counsel for RIL, opposed the Court taking the MoU on record and said that he reserves his right to cross examine the document.

Jethmalani, in his arguments, told the court that after the court approved the demerger of the Reliance group in 2005, the GSMA (gas sales master agreement) was signed between RIL and RNRL in 2006.

“But the agreement was signed between Mukesh Ambani as RIL and its subsidiary, RNRL, which was controlled by Mukesh Ambani at that time,” argued Jethmalani, adding that the agreement neither guarantees a firm quantity nor a firm tenure for the gas supply to RNRL.

It was a one-sided document that also stated that the gas would be sold at a price negotiated by the government. However, the hearing of the case is in progress and expected to be concluded soon.

It may be noted that earlier also, RIL had opposed to bring the MoU on record. It argued that the MoU was not produced by RNRL before the single judge earlier and now at the appellate stage, it cannot be allowed to be produced as an evidence.