Plea Against Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Over Alleged 'Gas Theft' An Abuse Of Process; Can Harm Reputation, Affect Business: Bombay High Court

While dismissing the petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its director Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani in the alleged 'gas theft' case, the Bombay High Court on Friday said that such petitions can harm the reputation of the entities and threaten their present or future business partnerships. Notably, an activist named Jitendra Maru sought a CBI probe against RIL and Ambani for allegedly stealing over USD 1.55 billion worth of natural gas from neighbouring Oil and Natural Gas Corporations (ONGC) wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, off the coast of Andhra Pradesh. However, the High Court dismissed the plea opining that Maru had not come to the court 'with clean hands.' The division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekar and Justice Suman Shyam said that the instant petition was 'not in public interest' but involved 'personal interest.'"The professed cause and the purpose behind this petition which is masked as the public cause are mere pretentious projections," the judges remarked, while noting that the petitioner - Maru, though claimed to be an activist but was previously engaged in the business of sale of plastics but he could not disclose any details of such a business.The judges highlighted the fact that Maru failed to explain as to what kind of social activity he has done since he claimed to be a social worker, and therefore, opined that the instant petition was not filed with a objective of raising a 'public cause.'"This writ petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation which does not serve any public purpose. There must be a public law element involved in the writ petition because the High Court takes a decision only upon considerations germane to the public law," the bench said. The judgment authored by Chief Justice Chandrashekhar underscores the 'experience' across the High Courts that the writ petitions of this kind or a petition masked as a public interest litigation is filed at the behest of the failed competitor or a rival business house or a 'disgruntled person.'"A petition like the present one causes serious harm to the reputation and business prospects of any Corporate entity. An attempt like this carries an inbuilt threat which may percolate into the minds of the business partners of any Corporate entity and thus threatening a present or future business partnership," the Chief Justice said in the order. The judges made it clear that the instant writ petition was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. "The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner gathered information from a newspaper report about commission of the crime pertaining to the ONGC wells. Merely because the petitioner makes certain allegations in this writ petition, he cannot claim to have a right in law to seek registration of the First Information Report against the fourth respondent, its officers, Directors etc," the judges opined. The judges termed Maru's justification for approaching the Court more than a decade after the dispute erupted between the RIL and Union of India, as a 'false explanation.'The judges said that the arbitral award dated July 24, 2018 which was initially made in favour of RIL, was overturned by a division bench of the Delhi High Court and the same is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. This fact, the petitioner, failed to mention in the petition, to which the RIL claimed was a 'suppression of fact' on the part of Maru. "A person approaching the writ Court must establish his bona fides. He must come clean to the Court and not with soil hands which has suppressed material facts from the Court. He must also prima facie demonstrate that he is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition. This writ petition fails on each count and has been filed with a tainted motive," the judges said while dismissing the plea. Background:According to the petition, RIL allegedly engaged in a “massive organized fraud” from 2004 to 2013-14 by drilling sideways from its contracted deep-sea wells into adjacent ONGC wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, illegally extracting natural gas. ONGC officials discovered the unauthorized extraction in 2013 and reported it to the Government of India.RIL claimed the gas was “migratory,” arguing it had the right to extract it. An independent investigation by De Golyer and Macnaghten (D&M) confirmed that RIL had tapped gas from ONGC wells without permission. Subsequently, the Justice AP Shah Committee quantified the stolen gas at over USD 1.55 billion, with accrued interest of USD 174.9 million.Earlier, RIL had secured an Arbitral Award in its favor in its dispute with ONGC, but the Delhi High Court Division Bench, in its 14th February 2025 order, allowed the Union of India's appeal and set aside the award. The court concluded the award was against public policy and had set aside the order in favour of Reliance.The petition claims that the alleged conspiracy originated in...

Plea Against Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Over Alleged 'Gas Theft' An Abuse Of Process; Can Harm Reputation, Affect Business: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Plea Against Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Over Alleged 'Gas Theft' An Abuse Of Process; Can Harm Reputation, Affect Business: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers