Latest news with #SaurabhBanerjee
Mint
20-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Reliance-led consortium moves Supreme Court over $1.7 billion KG Basin arbitration setback
New Delhi: A consortium led by Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi high court order that overturned a $1.7 billion arbitral award in its favour in the long-running Krishna-Godavari (KG) Basin gas migration dispute with state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC). The consortium, which includes British Petroleum Exploration (Alpha) Ltd and Niko (NECO), filed petitions on 14 May. Both BP and Niko have also filed separate appeals contesting the Delhi high court's ruling. 'Yes, we filed the plea against the high court ruling last week. It remains to be seen when the matter will be listed for hearing,' a person familiar with the matter told Mint, requesting anonymity. An email sent to Reliance on Tuesday afternoon remained unanswered. The Delhi high court's order, issued on 14 February by Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, set aside a May 2023 single-judge order that had upheld the arbitral award. The division bench declared the award unenforceable, citing multiple legal infirmities. Specifically, the court pointed to four reasons: RIL's failure to disclose a crucial 2003 report (constituting patent illegality); the arbitration not qualifying as international; violation of the public trust doctrine in the context of natural resources; and unjust enrichment, as the consortium profited from gas belonging to ONGC or the government. The verdict was seen as a major win for the central government in one of India's most high-profile energy sector disputes. It also cleared the path for the Centre to recover over ₹ 12,800 crore (approximately $1.7 billion) from the consortium. In a stock exchange filing in March, RIL disclosed that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had raised a separate demand of $2.81 billion from RIL, BP, and Niko, based on the gas migration findings. The case dates back to April 2000, when RIL and its partners signed a production-sharing contract (PSC) with the government for the KG-D6 block, off the Andhra Pradesh coast. RIL holds a 60% stake in the block, BP owns 30%, and Niko the remaining 10%. In 2013, ONGC raised concerns that gas reservoirs in its blocks might be connected to those in the KG-D6 field. A joint study commissioned by both parties, and conducted by US-based consultant DeGolyer and MacNaughton, confirmed in 2015 that significant quantities of gas had migrated from ONGC's blocks into RIL's. The report estimated the migrated gas to be worth over ₹ 11,000 crore. In response, a panel led by former Delhi high court chief justice A.P. Shah recommended compensation for what it termed 'unjust enrichment.' The government subsequently sought $1.5 billion in compensation, plus $174 million in interest. The consortium contested the claim and initiated arbitration in 2016. In 2018, a three-member tribunal chaired by Singapore-based arbitrator Lawrence Boo ruled 2:1 in favour of RIL and its partners, concluding that the PSC permitted the extraction of naturally migrated gas as long as it occurred within the contract area. The tribunal also directed the government to pay $8.3 million in arbitration costs. The government then challenged the award in the Delhi high court, alleging that RIL had extracted gas without proper authorization and had withheld critical information about reservoir connectivity since 2003.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
RIL moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC ruling in $1.73 billion gas dispute with ONGC
Reliance Industries Ltd ( RIL ) on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court challenging a recent decision by the division bench of the Delhi High Court that overturned a 2018 international arbitral award in its favour. The dispute centers around a $1.729 billion claim over gas migration from ONGC-operated blocks into RIL's Krishna Godavari D6 (KG-D6) block in the Bay of Bengal. The division bench, comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, in February this year set aside the earlier ruling of a single judge who had upheld the arbitral tribunal's award. That May 2023 decision had rejected the central government's allegations of 'insidious fraud' and ' unjust enrichment ' by RIL and its foreign partners—UK's BP Plc and Canada's Niko Resources. RIL, in its appeal to the apex court, has contended that the division bench had no jurisdiction to re-examine the merits of the case since the matter had been adjudicated through international arbitration. The Mukesh Ambani-led conglomerate argues that the 2018 tribunal ruling—delivered by a three-member panel led by Singapore-based arbitrator Lawrence Boo—was binding under the terms of the production sharing contract (PSC). The tribunal, in a 2-1 majority decision, ruled that the PSC did not restrict contractors from producing gas that had migrated into their licensed areas, effectively dismissing the government's $1.729 billion claim. The roots of the dispute trace back to 2013 when ONGC alerted the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) about suspected reservoir connectivity between its Godavari PML and KG-DWN-98/2 blocks and RIL's KG-D6 block. In response, the Delhi HC ordered an independent technical review in 2014, appointing US-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton (D&M). D&M's 2015 report confirmed reservoir connectivity and concluded that RIL's production activities could deplete ONGC 's reserves. This led the government to formally raise a demand of $1.55 billion in 2016, along with an additional $175 million in profit petroleum, citing unjust enrichment . RIL refuted the claims and invoked international arbitration under the PSC framework. The legal battle has now reached India's highest court, with RIL seeking to reinstate the arbitration award and challenge the HC's interference in a matter it believes was conclusively settled by the arbitral tribunal. The Supreme Court is yet to list the matter for hearing.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
RIL moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC ruling in $1.73 billion gas dispute with ONGC
Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court challenging a recent decision by the division bench of the Delhi High Court that overturned a 2018 international arbitral award in its favour. The dispute centers around a $1.729 billion claim over gas migration from ONGC-operated blocks into RIL 's Krishna Godavari D6 (KG-D6) block in the Bay of Bengal. The division bench, comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee, in February this year set aside the earlier ruling of a single judge who had upheld the arbitral tribunal's award. That May 2023 decision had rejected the central government's allegations of 'insidious fraud' and 'unjust enrichment' by RIL and its foreign partners—UK's BP Plc and Canada's Niko Resources. RIL, in its appeal to the apex court, has contended that the division bench had no jurisdiction to re-examine the merits of the case since the matter had been adjudicated through international arbitration. The Mukesh Ambani-led conglomerate argues that the 2018 tribunal ruling—delivered by a three-member panel led by Singapore-based arbitrator Lawrence Boo—was binding under the terms of the production sharing contract (PSC). The tribunal, in a 2-1 majority decision, ruled that the PSC did not restrict contractors from producing gas that had migrated into their licensed areas, effectively dismissing the government's $1.729 billion claim. The roots of the dispute trace back to 2013 when ONGC alerted the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) about suspected reservoir connectivity between its Godavari PML and KG-DWN-98/2 blocks and RIL's KG-D6 block. In response, the Delhi HC ordered an independent technical review in 2014, appointing US-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton (D&M). D&M's 2015 report confirmed reservoir connectivity and concluded that RIL's production activities could deplete ONGC's reserves. This led the government to formally raise a demand of $1.55 billion in 2016, along with an additional $175 million in profit petroleum, citing unjust enrichment . RIL refuted the claims and invoked international arbitration under the PSC framework. The legal battle has now reached India's highest court, with RIL seeking to reinstate the arbitration award and challenge the HC's interference in a matter it believes was conclusively settled by the arbitral tribunal. The Supreme Court is yet to list the matter for hearing.
India Today
05-05-2025
- Business
- India Today
High Court dismisses RCB's plea for injunction on Uber's 'Hyderabaddie' ad
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by Indian Premier League cricket team Royal Challengers Bengaluru seeking an interim injunction on an alleged disparaging YouTube advertisement of Uber Moto featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's cricketer Travis Saurabh Banerjee said the advertisement does not call for any interference at this stage."The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game of cricket, the game of sportsmanship which, in the opinion of the court, does not call for any interference of this court at this stage while considering the "More so, since, in a case like the present one, interference by this court at this stage would tantamount to ... allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling. Accordingly, the application is dismissed," the court said,The court pronounced the order on an interim application by RCB and the detailed order is Challengers Sports Private Limited filed a suit against Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd claiming that Uber Moto's YouTube advertisement titled "Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head" disparages its describing the video advertisement, RCB's counsel said the cricketer could be seen running towards Bengaluru cricket stadium with an aim to vandalise the signage of "Bengaluru Vs Hyderabad", takes a spray paint and writes "Royally Challenged" before Bengaluru making it "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" which disparages RCB's lawyer contended that when a negative comment is made, there is disparagement and added that Uber Moto, being the commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad IPL team, while promoting its product of booking a ride, used RCB's trademark in the course of its trade, that too its "deceptive variant", which was impermissible under counsel representing Uber said RCB had "severely discounted" the sense of humour of the public at counsel said good humour, sense of fun and banter are intrinsic to advertising messaging and these factors "will be killed" if such a standard, as mooted by RCB, is advertisement, by then, had garnered 1.3 million views and a number of comments from users on the social media platform.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi HC dismisses IPL team RCB's plea against Uber Moto's YouTube ad
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by Indian Premier League cricket team Royal Challengers Bengaluru against a YouTube advertisement of Uber Moto featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad 's cricketer Travis Head , saying no prima facie case of disparagement or infringement of trademark was made out. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack Pakistan's economy has much more to lose than India's due to the ongoing tensions, warns Moody's Ratings The day Pakistan got the power to poke India India demands ADB to stop funds to Pakistan as fallout of Pahalgam terror attack deepens The court opined that the general perception created by holistic viewing of the advertisement is one of healthy banter and good-natured lighthearted humour, as it refused to grant an interim injunction on the advertisement. The high court said in the advertisement there was "no element of demeaning/ criticism/ condemning/ ridiculing/ defaming/ mocking or falsity" with a view to injure or harm the RCB trademark or RCB cricket team. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Calcutta: 3BHK Interiors starting at 4.5 Lakhs HomeLane Get Quote Undo Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the application by Royal Challengers Bengaluru, saying it does not call for any interference at this stage. "All throughout the impugned advertisement, there is no (in)direct imputation/ insinuation/ comparison/ exaggeration/ sensationalism/ distortion of matters of fact of any kind by any of the defendants against the RCB trademark/ RCB cricket team," the court said in its 35-page order. Live Events Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited filed a suit against Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd claiming that Uber Moto's YouTube advertisement titled "Baddies in Bengaluru ft. Travis Head" disparages its trademark. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories The court, which passed the order on an interim application by RCB for relief, added the advertisement cannot be said to be false and misleading at this stage and there is no scope of any kind of irreparable harm, loss and injury likely to be caused to the plaintiff due to non-grant of temporary injunction. The court said there is no prima facie case of disparagement or infringement of trademark made out by the plaintiff in its favour and against the defendants. "The impugned advertisement is in the context of a game of cricket, a game of sportsmanship, which, in the opinion of this court, does not call for interference of any sort at this stage, especially while this court is considering the present application... "More so, since in a case like the present one, interference by this court, at this stage, would tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to run on water with assurances of their not falling," Justice Banerjee said. The court said there is nothing underlying in the advertisement which can trigger or motivate any members of the general public, much less any of the players/ viewers/ followers of any of the RCB or SRH cricket teams at this stage. "There can be no one-sided impression or one-sided version of the impugned advertisement, particularly, since what according to the plaintiff is 'right' can according to the defendants be 'wrong', and vice versa. "The act(s) of disparagement cannot be concluded on the basis of the reviews/ comments/ statements made by few viewers/ followers as there are always two sides of a coin. In any event, the same cannot form or be the benchmark for determining the act of disparagement and/ or infringement... This is not a telltale," the court said. Earlier, describing the video advertisement, RCB's counsel said the cricketer could be seen running towards Bengaluru cricket stadium with an aim to vandalise the signage of "Bengaluru Vs Hyderabad", takes a spray paint and writes "Royally Challenged" before Bengaluru making it "Royally Challenged Bengaluru" which disparages RCB's mark. The lawyer contended that when a negative comment is made, there is disparagement and added that Uber Moto, being the commercial sponsor of Sunrisers Hyderabad IPL team, while promoting its product of booking a ride, used RCB's trademark in the course of its trade, that too its "deceptive variant", which was impermissible under law. The counsel representing Uber said RCB had "severely discounted" the sense of humour of the public at large. Uber's counsel said good humour, sense of fun and banter are intrinsic to advertising messaging and these factors "will be killed" if such a standard, as mooted by RCB, is applied. The advertisement, by then, had garnered 1.3 million views and a number of comments from users on the social media platform.
