Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran opened his arguments in the Ambani brothers’ gas row. He submitted that any understanding between them was not binding as gas was not their “private property”, but a national asset..Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) counsel Ram Jethmalani promptly objected to the Petroleum ministry being permitted to be heard as a party to the dispute. He said the ministry had dropped its prayer in the Bombay High Court to be included as a party and was only accepted as an intervenor. Parasaran, however stood his ground that the Government has every right to be a party in this dispute..Earlier, Harish Salve, representing Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) had demanded withdrawal of RNRL’s allegation that the MoU was approved by its board. Jethmalani has locked horns with Salve regarding the latter making submissions not on the records of the Bombay High Court..Rohinton Nariman, who concluded RIL’s arguments insisted that a promoter’s family arrangement cannot be imposed upon the company’s shareholders. “The court has to act as an umpire. It only has a supervisory role,” he said.
Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran opened his arguments in the Ambani brothers’ gas row. He submitted that any understanding between them was not binding as gas was not their “private property”, but a national asset..Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) counsel Ram Jethmalani promptly objected to the Petroleum ministry being permitted to be heard as a party to the dispute. He said the ministry had dropped its prayer in the Bombay High Court to be included as a party and was only accepted as an intervenor. Parasaran, however stood his ground that the Government has every right to be a party in this dispute..Earlier, Harish Salve, representing Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) had demanded withdrawal of RNRL’s allegation that the MoU was approved by its board. Jethmalani has locked horns with Salve regarding the latter making submissions not on the records of the Bombay High Court..Rohinton Nariman, who concluded RIL’s arguments insisted that a promoter’s family arrangement cannot be imposed upon the company’s shareholders. “The court has to act as an umpire. It only has a supervisory role,” he said.