3 weeks ago
SC allows Delhi HC to hear $2.31 bn Reliance claim
A very old disagreement between the Indian government and a big company called Reliance is still going on in court.
It is about oil and gas fields in the sea called Panna-Mukta and Tapti.
In 1994, the government made a deal with Reliance and some partners to develop these fields.
Now the government says Reliance took back more money than the deal allowed.
Because of that, the government wants Reliance to return about $2.31 billion.
Reliance says the government is reading the deal the wrong way.
A court in Delhi is hearing the case, and Reliance asked an even bigger court, the Supreme Court, to stop it.
The Supreme Court said no - the Delhi court can keep going.
But Reliance is allowed to complain again later about whether the case should be heard at all.
So the fight will continue in court.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's hearing of the Union government's appeal seeking to recover about $2.31 billion from Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and its partners.
The dispute concerns the Panna-Mukta and Tapti offshore oilfields, developed under production-sharing contracts signed in 1994 by a consortium of Reliance, British Gas and ONGC.
On 2 February, a Delhi High Court Division Bench rejected Reliance's preliminary objection that the Centre's appeal to enforce a foreign arbitral award was not maintainable.
The Supreme Court kept Reliance's maintainability objection open, allowing the company to raise the issue again after the high court delivers its final verdict.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the appeal was in its 'last leg', while senior advocate Harish Salve said Reliance had no objection to a merits decision as long as maintainability was not foreclosed.
- Who
- The Union government of India (Centre) and Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) with its consortium partners, before the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.
- What
- The Supreme Court allowed the Delhi High Court to continue hearing the government's $2.31 billion recovery appeal against Reliance, while keeping Reliance's maintainability objection open.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court; the dispute concerns the Panna-Mukta and Tapti offshore oilfields.
- When
- The Supreme Court ruling came on Friday; the dispute stems from production-sharing contracts signed in 1994, with a 2016 arbitral award and high court proceedings ongoing.
- Why
- The government claims Reliance recovered costs beyond the contractual limit and retained more revenue than it was entitled to under the production-sharing contracts.
Union government (Centre)
Reliance Industries (RIL)
Contract interpretation
Union government (Centre)
Reliance recovered costs beyond the contractual limit, allowing it to retain more revenue than it was entitled to under the 1994 contracts.
Reliance Industries (RIL)
The government's interpretation of the contracts is incorrect.
Maintainability of the appeal
Union government (Centre)
The appeal to enforce the foreign arbitral award is maintainable, and the Division Bench was right to reject Reliance's preliminary objection.
Reliance Industries (RIL)
The appeal is not maintainable, and the issue should not be foreclosed so Reliance can raise it again if needed.
Key facts
- Amount claimed
- About $2.31 billion
- Disputed oilfields
- Panna-Mukta and Tapti (offshore)
- Contracts signed
- 1994 (production-sharing contracts)
- Consortium partners
- Reliance, British Gas, ONGC
- Arbitral award
- 2016 partial arbitral award
- Enforcement petition filed
- 2019 (Delhi High Court)
- Single judge ruling
- June 2023 - dismissed the enforcement petition
- Division Bench order
- 2 February - rejected Reliance's maintainability objection
Quotes
Senior advocate Harish Salve
Legal counsel for Reliance Industries Ltd
“"I have challenged the maintainability of the appeal... We are arguing the merits. I don't want this issue to be foreclosed."”
livemint.com
Sources
Related news
Vedanta challenges Centre's offshore extension rejection before Delhi High Court
SpiceJet Seeks More Time for ₹50 Crore Maran Payment
SC refuses spectrum charge stay, giving Airtel and Vi relief
Supreme Court Dismisses Final Appeal in Bofors Bribery Case
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
Haryana sanitation workers’ strike puts BJP government under pressure
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
