Reliance Ind told to appoint new arbitrator for KG-D6 dispute

March 12, 2013 07:20 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 11:12 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry is understood to have asked Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) to appoint a new arbitrator for the KG-D6 block dispute with the Ministry, after a disclosure made by current arbitrator Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari indicated a conflict of interest.

Highly placed sources in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry said the decision was taken after detailed discussions with the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH). Following the discussions, the Petroleum Ministry and its legal team were of the view that it would not be tenable for Mr. Dharmadhikari to continue in the present position as an arbitrator for RIL after the disclosure made by him.

In his disclosure statement to the DGH, Justice Dharmadhikari stated: “On perusal of my personal record, I have discovered that in the year 1988 and 1992, I held 450 shares of Rs. 10 each of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. In the year 1992, 40 shares of Rs. 10 were issued against my holding of equity shares in RPL on merger with RIL. I consider it to be my legal obligation to disclose this fact to the parties to the present arbitration in accordance with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1956.”

Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act states that: “an arbitrator may be changed only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality.”

Not entitled

The government had informed the contractors (RIL and NIKO) last May that they were not entitled to recovery of costs incurred for the excess capacity created in block KG-DWN-98/3 and such recovery of costs had to be limited only to the extent of the infrastructure used by them for the production of gas, and accordingly, the costs were inadmissible.

Arbitration proceedings

However, RIL initiated arbitration proceedings against the Petroleum Ministry’s move after gas production from there registered a massive decline. The arbitration said the production sharing contract contained no provisions that entitled ‘the government to restrict the costs recovered by the company’. Besides, the investment made in the KG-D6 production facilities had been only partly recovered and the return on investment so far is less than the cost of the capital, it had stated.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.