This refers to ‘NTPC has a long way to go’, Sept 7. Normally when a matter is sub-judice, care is taken not to make comments lest these be construed as an attempt to influence the course of justice. The column purports to pronounce a decision even before the court has heard the arguments. It is RIL’s contention that there is no legally binding and enforceable contract that exists between itself and NTPC. RIL accepted the NTPC LoI based on the premise that the outstanding provisions in the Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement would required to be agreed and incorporated between RIL and NTPC. With NTPC filing a suit instead, RIL withdrew the offer.
The article says that RNRL’s claim for gas being based on the RIL-NTPC contract, if the NTPC contract fails RNRL’s claims also fall flat, hence NTPC should join the dispute between RNRL and RIL not to protect its own interests but to protect RNRL’s interests! It has been claimed that while NTPC can at present pass the cost of the fuel to State Electricity Boards (SEBs) the same would not be possible from January 2011. NTPC has already executed PPAs for the Kawas and Gandhar plants expansion with apparently fuel cost as a pass through to the SEBs. The suggestions that NTPC should have transferred its case to Supreme Court, exposes lack of understanding – the Supreme Court is an appellate court and except under certain circumstances, it cannot be the forum for original jurisdiction.
RP Sharma,
President (Gas Business), Reliance Industries Limited
Sunil Jain writes:
RIL says the LoI it got from NTPC makes it clear that negotiations between the two parties took place even after it accepted the LoI and that outstanding provisions in the GSPA had to be agreed upon. The Solicitor General examined this and said that it “does not in any way diminish the character of acceptance of the bid by RIL … “. The SG also cited RIL chairman Mukesh Ambani’s letter to NTPC after the LoI was given, and says the letter showed RIL proceeded on the basis it had got the contract and not as if the contract still had to be negotiated.
I have not said that NTPC should have intervened in the RNRL case in the SC to protect RNRL’s interests. I merely pointed out that, instead of joining the battle, NTPC filed a procedural matter in the Supreme Court. This was based on the SG’s advice that “the Querist is advised to explore the possibility of the transfer of the suit to the Supreme Court. The Querist must also seek interim direction for release of gas from the Supreme Court as an interim measure”. Presumably the SG has some “understanding of the role and the hierarchy of courts”. As for the matter being sub judice, in his interview given to this newspaper, PMS Prasad of RIL talked of the NTPC deal and tried to show that NTPC was the party that got it wrong. Was he too trying to influence the court? The matter was in the public domain and my comments were based on the Solicitor General’s opinion, widely reported in the press.
