Justice R.V. Raveendran recused himself from sitting on the panel of three judges.
“I do not want to be a party to this case,” he said according to news wire Bloomberg.
“Yesterday, I spoke to my daughter who is in Bangalore and she works with AZB & Partners, which is advising Reliance Industries on other projects for global acquisitions.”
His daughter Sunitha Rajesh joined AZB as a partner on 1 September as a part of AZB’s merger with the practice of Bangalore lawyer Anup Shah.
She declined to comment when contacted.
AZB has been a long-standing adviser to Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Limited (RIL).
The bench in the dispute will have to be reshuffled to replace Justice Raveendran. According to Bloomberg his successor will be named later today.
The complex case was first brought to the courts by RNRL in November 2006 over a 17-year supply contract that would see RIL supply gas to RNRL at a fixed price of $2.34 per million British thermal units (mBtu).
Anil Ambani’s Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) is being represented in the Supreme Court by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, with senior counsel Harish Salve arguing for RIL.
Mumbai-based Mulla & Mulla was the law firm representing RNRL in its Bombay High Court victory (as first reported by Legally India on 16 June).
However, RIL has now instructed Delhi-based Mahesh Agarwal of Agarwal Law Associates as its law firm counsel.
Comments
Lol. Seems RIL isn't too happy about the fact that it was brought up this late into the proceedings. Now the proceedings are starting afresh. And then we ask ourselves why is the judiciary painfully slow to decide cases. Seems the fault is with the litigants too. Although RIL has squarely put the blame on AZB in this matter judging by the wording of their response.
There is bound to be foul play at work here and/or some very clever strategising.
However there appears to be no rule at all about lawyers working in law firms. Is this due to an oversight or attributable to the fact that Indian corporate lawyering is underdeveloped or is it because ( as stated by SNP Sinha here on legallyindia) law firms are outside the jurisdiction (or some such word) of the BCI?
The balance sheet of our companies will be dented.
When elephants fight,poor grass suffers.
I am not sure that the analogy is accurate. An AG represents the government and his/her relative will represent the opponent. In the end it is the judges that deliver the judgment. Sure, some will say that one of the lawyers (AG or his/her relative) might compromise upon the legal quality of their brief owing to their filial relationhship with the opponent's lawyer. But the same argument can be made for any other case. Two counsels might collude to deprive one party with an opportunity to secure justice. The remedy in such a case is vigilance, disclosure and strict penalties for any breach of duty to your client.
As far as being the offspring of the judge hearing a case involving a company that is represented by the law firm in which the offspring works is concerned, the answer couldn't be more clear. The judge MUST recuse himself/herself. A judge is supposed to be impartial and independent and any appearance of favouritism might affect the legitimacy of the judgment even if decided on merits. Justice must also be seen to be done.
What, however, remains an important issue is the extent to which children of judges influence the judicial administration system and the bar. For example in a particular High Court, there are rumours that children of some judges get paid fees, for bail and other criminal misc. matters, which is much higher than what senior advocates are paid. This practice, if true must be curbed since it does effect the client's confidence in the system. In this context, it would also be pertinent to draw reference to the latest law commission report which comes down heavily on "uncle judges culture".