SEARCH

News » National

Updated: September 14, 2009 16:38 IST

RNRL moves SC to become party to NTPC-RIL case

PTI
print   ·   T  T  
Anil Ambani
PTI Anil Ambani

Anil Ambani group company RNRL on Monday sought the Supreme Court’s permission to be a party to power PSU NTPC’s case against Reliance Industries for getting gas at a contracted price, saying its case against the Mukesh Ambani-led firm was similar.

“Since the issues that arise in the case filed by NTPC in the Supreme Court directly affect the case of RNRL against RIL, it is just and necessary that RNRL is permitted to be impleaded as a party in the present case,” Reliance Natural Resources said in its application for intervention.

Listing out a number of issues that are “common” in the cases instituted by NTPC and RNRL against Reliance Industries for enforcement of an agreement to supply gas, RNRL said: “RIL is relying upon the pleadings in RIL Vs RNRL case to support its defence against NTPC.”

Therefore, any decision on NTPC’s petition, filed on September 5, would have a bearing on RNRL’s case already pending before the Supreme Court, the application said.

Both RIL and RNRL have filed cross-appeals on a June 15 judgement of Bombay High Court that asked RIL to give gas at USD 2.34 per mmBtu and suggested the two firms to reach an enabling agreement for the same.

The Supreme Court would commence hearing on October 20 on these appeals, as also a related petition filed by the government. NTPC’s petition, challenging a Bombay High Court decision that allowed RIL to amend its petition on the gas dispute citing the government’s pricing policy, is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court.

More In: National | News | Business

In the 16th Lok Sabha Election 2014, West Bengal has witnessed some interesting trends. Apart from the debacle of the Left and the ascendance of the Trinamool Congress (AITC), the other somewhat s... »

International

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

Kerala


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

‘Disciplinary action cannot continue after retirement’

Unless a specific clause provides for such proceedings, says SC »