RIL told to produce witness in IPCL case

Anti-monopoly body MRTPC has directed Reliance Industries to produce witness for cross-examination in a case of alleged restrictive trade practice in 1997 by IPCL, which later merged with the Mukesh Ambani Group’s flagship company.

“Respondent (RIL) is now directed to produce its witness on the next date of listing for resuming the cross-examination of its witness and would expect that no further adjournment would be sought so that the inquiry can be concluded expeditiously,” said an MRTPC bench headed by Justice O P Dwivedi while disposing of an application moved by RIL.

In the application, RIL requested the commission to cancel the case and discharge the company from the notice of inquiry on the ground that the case has lost its relevance as the market conditions have changed since its filing in 1997.

RIL had bought a controlling stake in state-run IPCL in 2002. However, the commission said the delay was due to frequent adjournments sought by RIL during the proceedings.

“The respondent was being directed since 2004 to offer its evidence and put its witness for cross-examination. Because of persistent adjournments sought by the respondent, the right of the respondent to lead its evidence and also filing the affidavit of evidence had to be closed.” It was later restored after imposing a cost on the company in March 2006.

“It would be fair at this stage that we carry on with the process of completion of the evidence of the respondent (RIL) rather than coming to the conclusion that the enquiry should be disposed of, premising the facts and contentions as advanced by the parties are identical and shall continue to be identical,” the commission said.

RIL also submitted that the commission, earlier in a similar matter relating to alleged discriminatory prices of two of its products, had discharged RIL from the notice of inquiry.

However, this contention was opposed by the Director General of Investigations and Registration (DGIR), MRTPC’s investigative unit, by submitting that matters were not similar and that the order too was stayed by the Supreme Court.