YESTERDAY’S SOLUTIONS (14512)

to remain”.

“We are of the view that the Punjab Act cannot be considered to be legal and valid and the state of Punjab can not absolve itself from its duties/ liabilities arising out of the agreement in question,” said the bench while responding to a Presidential reference on the validity of the legislation.

The top court’s ruling came in response to a reference made by former President APJ Abdul Kalam on the request of the Centre.

Referring to a 1981 watersharing agreement, the bench said it had legal sanction after the SC upheld it in 2002.

“Once an arrangement is a binding decree, a party cannot unilaterally act in a manner to nullify the effect of the judgment,” the court said. “unsubstantiated claims, half truths without a word of explanation as to why it (removal of Cyrus) became necessary”.

“Tata Sons statement reflects desperation, admits receiving emails and calls from many across globe since board decided to change (its) chairman.”

Tata Sons shocked the corporate world last month when it removed Mistry, sparking a war of words between the two camps with the ousted chairman saying he faced interference from Ratan Tata, who he replaced in 2012. The Tatas have dismissed the charge and accused Mistry of poor performance.

Thursday’s developments further rattled the Indian industry.

“Any such charges and counter charges erode the Tata brand which has stood for trust and reliability. We can only hope that the situation is resolved fast and a solution is found that will be good for the Tatas and for India Inc as well,” said RPG Enterprises chairman Harsh Goenka.