They also submitted that the contents of the MoU had not been disclosed to them. In separate affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, the directorsMahesh Prasad Modi, Dharam Vir Kapur, Yogendra Premkrishna Trivedi, Hital Rasiklal Meswani, Nikhil Rasiklal Meswani and Hardev Singh Kohlisaid, The memorandum of understanding stated to have been entered between Kokilaben D Ambani, Mukesh D Ambani and Anil D Ambani, as part of a family settlement, has never been placed before the board of directors nor has it ever been circulated to them at the meeting of the board of directors of RIL held on June 18, 2005.
At the meeting of the board of directors of RIL on June 18, 2005, the board was informed by the chairman of the amicable resolution of the differences amongst the members of the promoter family. The board of directors decided to authorise the corporate governance and stakeholders interface committee to consider and submit a recommendation to the full board concerning a possible reorganisation by means of a scheme of arrangement. The board authorised the corporate governance committee to retain the services of solicitors, chartered accountants, merchant bankers, valuers and other experts. These matters are also duly reflected in the minutes of the board meeting of that day, the directors said.
According to the six directors, the corporate governance committee was provided two documents on August 3, 2005, signed by Gautam Doshi and Sandeep Tandon who are not RIL employees and was informed that the former was duly authorised by Anil Ambani and the latter by Mukesh Ambani to sign these documents. Moreover, the scheme of arrangement was recommended by the corporate governance committee and approved by the board of directors of RIL, with certain amendments on August 5, 2005.
The affidavits come on the back of RIL telling the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the MOU was not binding on the corporate entity RIL. RIL also said it was stipulated in the MoU that a binding gas supply agreement would be finalised not later than 45 days from the date of the said MoU. Also, that the MoU did not create any obligation to supply of gas except under such binding gas supply agreement.