The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions filed by ceramic companies seeking a direction to ONGC to regularise additional supply gas required for their daily operations.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions filed by ceramic companies including Akash Ceramics, seeking a direction to Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) to regularise additional supply gas required for their daily operations.
A bench headed by Justice S B Sinha, while dismissing the petitions said, "We are of the opinion that as the writ petition itself is to be heard by the single judge, it is not necessary for us to interfere in the matter at this stage. We have no doubt in our mind that the single judge shall determine the issues between the parties uninfluenced by any observation by the division bench."
Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Akash Ceramics, said it was not necessary that the contract should be in writing and it had expanded its plant only after the assurance given by ONGC for supply of additional 22,000 standard cubic metres per day (scmd) of natural gas.
The action of ONGC in discontinuing the supply without any intimation was arbitrary and against principles of natural justice.
Opposing the appeals, ONGC counsel Gourab Bannerjee stated that Indian Oil already supplied excess quantity topetitioners when there was no formal agreement for the same.
In the contractual matters and economic policy decisions, the courts cannot interfere especially in the matter where the petitioners had gone a step further by claiming supply of gas without a formal agreement, he added.
Akash Ceramics and others had approached the apex court seeking quashing of the order passed by the division bench of the Gujarat High Court that had vacated the protection of status quo order granted by the single judge. The status quo order allegedly amounted to stopping of gas supply, thus rendering the unit closed.
Though Akash was allowed to draw excess gas on temporary basis since December 2000, ONGC had agreed to supply 4500 SCMPD against demand of 7,000 SCMD after the formal contract between the two in July 2002.
The petitioner had stated that it had come forward to purchase gas when nobody was prepared to take it from ONGC. As such the latter was obliged not to disturb the present arrangement for supply of additional gas.
The companies had moved the High Court after ONGC had discontinued supply of additional gas.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}