Microsoft restores services to Nayara, lawsuit disposed of
New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) Microsoft Corp has restored all services, including email access, to Russian oil giant Rosneft-backed Nayara Energy, following which a lawsuit brought against the move has been disposed of in favour of the refiner.
'Nayara Energy confirms that all Microsoft services critical to its operations have been fully restored, with no disruption to business continuity and data integrity remaining fully intact,' the company said in a statement.
The oil refiner was using paid services from Microsoft Corporation India Pvt Ltd. These were abruptly and unilaterally discontinued by Microsoft on Monday.
In response, Nayara moved the Delhi High Court, which on July 28 issued notice on the petition.
Subsequently, and prior to the hearing, Microsoft restored full access to email, Microsoft Teams, and other services for Nayara on Wednesday at 10.00 Hrs.
When the matter was taken up, the Court recorded that the immediate grievance stood resolved, while expressly granting Nayara the liberty to approach the Court again if issues recur, and directed Microsoft to address any further concerns raised by Nayara.
The petition was disposed of by the High Court in favour of Nayara Energy.
'We acknowledge the prompt intervention of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in facilitating the resolution of this matter. The petition was disposed of by the High Court in favour of Nayara Energy,' the statement said.
Microsoft on Monday suspended its services to Nayara Energy after the European Union included the company in a new round of sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine war.
A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed restoration of Nayara services.
'Microsoft is committed to supporting all its customers in India and worldwide, and has restored services for Nayara Energy. We are engaged in ongoing discussions with the European Union towards service continuity for the organization,' the spokesperson said.
Nayara Energy said it 'is an Indian company, committed to fueling the nation's growing energy needs..
'As a trusted partner in India's energy journey, we remain focused on ensuring uninterrupted energy supply, advancing the country's refining and retail capabilities, creating employment opportunities, and supporting India's path toward energy self-sufficiency and economic growth,' it said.
Nayara had called the action by Microsoft unilateral. 'Nayara Energy has initiated legal proceedings against Microsoft following the abrupt and unilateral suspension of critical services. Microsoft is currently restricting Nayara Energy's access to its own data, proprietary tools, and products – despite these being acquired under fully paid-up licences,' the company had said in a statement on July 28.
Rosneft owns a 49.13 per cent stake in Nayara Energy Ltd, formerly Essar Oil Ltd. Nayara owns and operates a 20 million tonnes per year oil refinery at Vadinar in Gujarat and runs over 6,750 petrol pumps across the country.
An investment consortium SPV, Kesani Enterprises Company, holds another 49.13 per cent stake in Nayara. Kesani is owned by Russia's United Capital Partners (UCP) and Hara Capital Sarl, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mareterra Group Holding (formerly Genera Group Holding S.p.A.).
'This decision, based solely on Microsoft's unilateral interpretation of recent European Union (EU) sanctions, sets a dangerous precedent for corporate overreach and raises serious concerns regarding its implications on India's energy ecosystem,' Nayara had said.
The firm had said it had filed a petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking an interim injunction and resumption of services to safeguard its rights and ensure continued access to essential digital infrastructure.
'These steps are aimed at preventing any potential disruption to Nayara's ability to meet its obligations to Indian consumers and stakeholders,' it had said.
Nayara believes that while the sanctions originate exclusively from the EU, Microsoft – a US-headquartered corporation – chose to withdraw services from the company without any legal requirement to do so under US or Indian law.
'This action has been taken unilaterally, without prior notice, consultation or recourse, and under the guise of compliance. Such moves signal a worrying trend of global corporations extending foreign legal frameworks into jurisdictions where they have no applicability,' it had said.
Nayara accounts for about 8 per cent of the country's total refining capacity and 7 per cent of its retail petrol pump network. PTI ANZ ANZ MR
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a few seconds ago
- First Post
80 years after Hiroshima: Nuclear threat still looms over global security
History, with its grim cycles and painful lessons, has every reason to indict humanity. In the week marking the 80th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia announced it no longer considers itself bound by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, blaming 'the actions of Western countries' for creating a 'direct threat' to its security. Last Friday, US President Donald Trump said he had ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines 'in appropriate regions' following what he described as 'highly provocative comments' by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is ironic that nuclear weapons still exist, despite the well-known devastation they cause to the planet—and the threat of nuclear sabre-rattling remains as constant as the air we breathe. Aside from white lilies and sombre memorial services for the dead, and sympathy for those emotionally and physically maimed by the two blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, little has moved forward in practical terms. In the prologue of her book Nuclear War: A Scenario, Annie Jacobsen describes a frightening vision of what the next nuclear bomb explosion might look like. For now, it is only imagination—but reality would unfold within minutes if the bombs were ever detonated, for whatever reason. She writes: 'A 1-megaton thermonuclear weapon detonation begins with a flash of light and heat so tremendous it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend. One hundred and Eighty million degrees Fahrenheit is four or five times hotter than the temperature that occurs at the center of the Earth's sun. In the first fraction of a second this thermonuclear bomb strikes… there is light…. Soft X-ray light with a very short wavelength. The light superheats the surrounding air to a millions of degrees, creating a massive fireball that expands at millions of miles per hour. Within a few seconds, this fireball increases to a diameter of a little more than a mile (5,700 feet across), its light and heat so intense that concrete surfaces explode, metal objects melt or evaporate, stone shatters, humans instantaneously convert into combusting carbon.' This, of course, is Jacobsen's speculative scenario of what might happen if a nuclear bomb were to strike the Pentagon outside Washington. But if such an event were to occur, her imagined horror would become exact, unbearable reality. In the 653-page book The Effects of Nuclear War, authored along with Philip J Dolan, Samuel Galsstone writes, 'There are inherent difficulties in making exact measurements of weapons effects. The results are often dependent upon circumstances, which are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to control even in tests and would certainly be unpredictable in the event of an attack.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then, after the immediate destruction there is the curse of a nuclear winter which is inevitable. A legacy of devastation, a present of peril Eighty years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more than 200,000 people and left haunting reminders of nuclear warfare, the world remains on edge. Far from fading into the pages of history, nuclear weapons continue to cast a long, ominous shadow over global peace and security. While the world has avoided another nuclear strike since 1945, today's risks may be even more acute driven by geopolitical volatility, advancing technologies and the slow unravelling of disarmament frameworks. A world still armed to the teeth As of early 2025, the global stockpile of nuclear warheads stands at approximately 12,241, with the vast majority—over 90 per cent—held by United States and Russia. This massive arsenal is not just a relic of the Cold War but a continually modernised force, featuring increasingly sophisticated delivery systems and warhead designs, Andrew Hammond writes in The Business Times. While global treaties have aimed to curb proliferation, they have done little to dismantle the core of existing nuclear forces. Slowing clock of disarmament The post-Cold War era witnessed a surge of hope for nuclear disarmament. Treaties such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) and initiatives like the Nuclear Security Summits led to tangible reductions and enhanced controls over nuclear materials. However, this progress has since slowed, if not reversed. Today, the momentum has shifted towards rearmament. The United States is developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and has indicated an openness to resuming nuclear testing. Meanwhile, China has more than tripled its arsenal, reaching around 600 warheads. These developments have reignited fears of a new arms race, especially as Russia also pursues advanced systems like hypersonic missiles and underwater nuclear drones. Submarines are indeed deadly platforms for nuclear launches. Efforts such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which came into force in 2021, have garnered support from many non-nuclear states. Yet, they have been largely dismissed by nuclear-armed nations. The global appetite for disarmament, once buoyed by the horrors of Hiroshima, is faltering in the face of renewed strategic competition. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Tensions in a fragile world Geopolitical fault lines are increasingly volatile, exacerbating the risk of nuclear conflict. Recent exchanges between Medvedev and Trump over nuclear threats serve as stark reminders of how easily diplomatic tensions can veer into dangerous territory. Medvedev's reference to Russia's 'Dead Hand' nuclear retaliation system and Trump's counter by repositioning submarines closer to Russia are not just posturing, they reflect the peril of miscalculation in today's hyper-charged political climate. Other hotspots, including the enduring India-Pakistan conflict and North Korea's relentless nuclear testing, add layers of complexity. These regions combine deep-seated historical animosities with nuclear capabilities, making them particularly susceptible to escalation. Iran, for its part, remains a significant concern. Reeling from attacks on its nuclear facilities, Tehran may further accelerate its nuclear programme, potentially pushing other regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey toward similar ambitions. Technology: The new wildcard While nuclear weapons have always embodied existential danger, emerging technologies are making the nuclear scenario even more unpredictable. Artificial intelligence, cyber warfare and advanced missile defence systems are disrupting the traditional logic of nuclear deterrence. According to Hammond, AI-driven systems, if poorly managed, could make decisions faster than human operators can verify, increasing the likelihood of misjudgements. Meanwhile, cyberattacks on nuclear command and control systems could trigger false alarms or disable safeguards. The potential for accidental launches or misinterpreted threats has grown significantly in an era of digital warfare and machine decision-making. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During the Cold War and into the 1990s, several false alarms nearly triggered nuclear war due to technical errors and misinterpretations. In the 1950s, a flock of Canadian geese was mistaken for a Soviet bomber attack by radar systems. The 1960s saw meteor showers and radar reflections from the moon falsely indicating a missile strike, while in 1979, a human error led to a false nuclear alert, causing Norad (North American Aerospace Defense Command) to scramble fighter jets. A year later, a faulty computer chip triggered a similar scare, prompting the preparation of B-52 bombers and the President's emergency aircraft. The most serious incident occurred in 1995 when a Norwegian research rocket was misidentified by Russian systems as a US nuclear missile, prompting president Boris Yeltsin to consider a retaliatory strike, an act he ultimately resisted, narrowly avoiding catastrophe. Terrorism threat Beyond state actors, the threat of nuclear terrorism has not disappeared. While acquiring a functional nuclear weapon remains a high barrier for non-state groups, the possibility of a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb) is far more feasible. Such a weapon would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material, potentially causing mass panic, economic chaos and long-term contamination of urban centres.. Hammond mentions former US defence secretary Robert Gates who once remarked that the thought of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear weapon was what kept him awake at night. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Treaties undermined, norms at risk International treaties and arms control frameworks that once served as guardrails are now fraying. The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was set just one second from midnight earlier this year, the closest it has ever been to global catastrophe. Eighty years after Hiroshima, the world faces a dual nuclear threat: that of state-led warfare and non-state terrorism. While the horrors of 1945 forged a powerful global aversion to nuclear war, that consensus is under threat. The only way to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again is to eliminate them altogether. Eight decades on, the urgency of that mission has never been clearer.
Mint
a few seconds ago
- Mint
Trump's U-turn: After accusing Zelensky of ‘starting war', how US is using Ukraine to justify tariff on ‘friend' India
The day was February 28, 2025 and the White House prepared to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. When the two leaders met, they shook hands and politely discussed diplomatic matters among other things. Minutes later, the meeting turned into a shouting match between Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Volodymyr Zelensky after the Ukrainian president emphasised the need for 'security guarantees for Ukraine' for any deal to happen. That started the clash, with the United States accusing Ukraine of being ungrateful for American support and of 'stalling' peace talks with Russia – warning, 'You're either going to make a deal, or we're out.' 'You see the hatred he's got for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. That's tough to make a deal with that kind of hate,' Trump said as the whole world watched on LIVE television. Accused of 'starting the war', Zelensky left and the deal, that would have given the US rights to rare earth minerals in Ukraine, was not signed that day. Cut to July 2025 – Ukraine has now become the flashpoint in Donald Trump's trade war with India. In a stunning shift, Donald Trump, who once pointed the finger at Zelensky for starting the Russia-Ukraine war, has now trained his guns on India – imposing 25 per cent tariffs and additional penalties for New Delhi's business ties with Moscow, accusing New Delhi of bankrolling Vladimir Putin's war machine by buying Russian oil. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have spoken over the phone, but not met since Trump returned to the White House in January, despite both leaders expressing their desire for face-to-face talks. After one of the calls that happened in May, the US president said his call with Vladimir Putin went very well and that Moscow and Kyiv 'will immediately start negotiations' toward a ceasefire and end to the war. As Trump sounded hopeful, the Russian president said more 'compromises' were needed. By the end of the month, Trump – sensing no end to the Ukraine war – had started threatening sanctions on Russian products, warning Vladimir Putin that he was 'playing with fire'. Trump even admitted that Putin was not looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. 'I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, because I don't think he's there, and I'm very disappointed. I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad,' he said. Donald Trump has often portrayed himself as a dealmaker and global peacemaker, but as Russia refused to fall in line with his expectations, the US president began to show signs of frustration. Buoyed by his own expectations and frustrated over not being able to bring the Ukraine conflict to an end, Trump shifted blame outward. He slapped 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods and announced additional penalties for India's business ties with Russia. But Trump didn't stop there. He threatened even more tariffs for India's purchase of Russian oil, accusing the country of 'fueling' the Ukraine war. What could be called a striking twist, Ukraine, a country Trump had once accused of 'starting the war,' is now at the centre of his trade war with India, which he has used as a geopolitical weapon to justify the tariffs on 'friend' India.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a few seconds ago
- Business Standard
Indian Army shares 1971 news clip highlighting US role in arming Pakistan
In the backdrop of mounting US criticism of India's purchase of crude oil from Russia, the Indian Army on Tuesday posted a news clip of August 1971 which highlighted the role played by the US in arming Pakistan "since 1954". The news clip was shared in a post by the Eastern Command on X. "#IndianArmy #EasternCommand #VijayVarsh #LiberationOfBangladesh #MediaHighlights 'This Day That Year" Build Up of War - 05 Aug 1971 #KnowFacts. US Arms Worth $2 Billion Shipped to Pakistan Since '54," it said. The news, published few months before the Indo-Pak War of 1971 that led to creation of Bangladesh, talks about the role US had played in arming Pakistan the preceding nearly two decades. "US Arms Worth $2 Billion Shipped to Pakistan Since '54," the headline says. The report quotes V C Shukla, then minister for defence production, who had told the Rajya Sabha about the estimated valuation of the arms supplied for that period. The social media post comes amid mounting criticism by Washington on New Delhi's purchase of crude oil from Russia. India on Monday mounted an unusually sharp counterattack on the US and the European Union for their "unjustified and unreasonable" targeting of New Delhi for its procurement of Russian crude oil. New Delhi's response came hours after US President Donald Trump asserted that Washington will substantially raise tariffs on goods from India over its energy ties with Russia. Firmly rejecting the criticism, India pointed out the double standards in targeting it on the issue and said both the US and the EU are continuing their trade relations with Russia. "Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion," the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said. The Europe-Russia trade includes not just energy, but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel, and machinery and transport equipment, the MEA said in a late-evening statement. "Where the US is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilizers as well as chemicals," it added. "In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security," the MEA said. It said India has been "targeted" by the US and the EU for importing oil from Russia after the commencement of the Ukraine conflict. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
