Reliance Communications Chairman Anil Ambani today said he could transfer shares in the company without restrictions, rejecting Reliance Industries Chairman and elder brother Mukesh Ambani's claim of having the first right of refusal as "meaningless''.
Citing an Article under the Companies Act, RCom has stated that "any restrictions on the free transfer of shares in an Indian public limited company, even if present in its Articles of Association, are illegal and unenforceable".
RCom was stating Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. On this basis, the ADAG group claims RIL's claim is meaningless. The company also stated that the Union Cabinet ministers, based on an opinion by the Attorney General of India and various Supreme Court decisions, also took this view.
"RIL's claim of a right of first refusal is simply an excuse to try and disrupt the creation of one of the world's most valuable telecom combinations, with a unique footprint covering the emerging growth markets of India, Africa and the Middle East," it said.
ADAG also states that RIL's position is even worse as its alleged right of first refusal is not even incorporated in RCom's Articles of Association.
More From This Section
An RIL spokesperson, however, declined to make any comment on the issue.
RCom also said RIL's reference to an agreement dated January 12, 2006, was misleading, as RCom had written to RIL the same day, rejecting the procedure adopted for finalising such agreements as being illegal.
ADAG had contended that the agreement was not acceptable as L V Merchant, on behalf of RIL, and Sandeep Tandon, on behalf of RCom, signed it even though he was a part of the Mukesh Ambani group.
However, sources close to RIL said: "It is surprising that even after receiving a legal written letter from RIL, both RCom and MTN have not replied, stating their legal position."
ADAG retorted saying: "RIL is evading the issue that the alleged agreement dated January 12, 2006, was illegally signed only by RIL's own officials, when RCom was still under Mukesh Ambani's control.
On that date, the management control of the company had still not been transferred to ADAG. The Bombay High Court has upheld this stand by a judgment delivered on October 15, 2007.
ADAG also said they had written letters again on February 6 (when the management of RCom was eventually transferred to ADAG) as well as on February 27, clearly stating that they did not agree to the procedure involved in the agreement. However, RIL did not respond to these letters.
Sources in ADAG also pointed out that on January 10, just two days before the agreement was signed, ADAG executives had written a letter to RIL, requesting them to send them the draft of the agreement, which was to be discussed. However, again, it got no response from the Mukesh Ambani group.
SIBLING RIVALRY
18 June 2005
Family Settlement Agreement signed between MDA (as chairman, RIL) and ADA ( as vice-chairman, RIL)
10 January 2006 (post-8 pm)
ADA representatives send mail to L V Merchant and Sandeep Tandon (both employees of MDA group) asking for a copy of agreement to be discussed and decided by the board on June 11, 2006. No response received
11 June 2006
RIL Board meets and finalises agreement
12 June 2006
L V Merchant on, behalf of RIL, and Sandeep Tandon, on behalf of RCom, sign the agreement
12 June 2006
ADA Group writes a protest letter to RIL on the "Procedure followed in signing the agreement" "agreement being signed by two employees of MDA group" and "certain inclusions and exclusions in the January 12, 2006, agreement that were not in line with the June 18, 2005, settlement". Says agreement has been entered into with criminal intent
6 February 2006
Management control of RCom handed over to ADA group. ADAG takes management control of Rcom
6 February 2006
ADAG sends another letter protesting the agreement signed unilaterally on January 12, 2006, by two nominees of MDA group without knowledge and involvement of ADAG nominees
27 February 2006
ADAG sends another letter protesting against the procedure followed while signing January 12 agreement
15 October 2007
Bombay High Court terms January 12, 2006, agreement as "unfair and unjust"