SC agrees to hear Cyrus Mistry’s plea

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a cross appeal filed by ousted Tata group chairman Cyrus Mistry against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment of December.

Mistry has sought more relief from the NCLAT, saying that the December order did not do full justice.

The apex court bench comprising justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy ordered his plea to be tagged with the appeals filed by Ratan Tata and Tata sons who have also challenged the judgment.

The December 18 judgment of the NCLAT held that the decision to remove Cyrus Mistry as Tata Sons chairman was illegal, and that he should be reinstated as chairman of the company and as director of three other group firms. The NCLAT also held that the appointment of a new chairman in his place was illegal.

The NCLAT in its order had refused to amend the Articles of Association (AoA) which were alleged to have been “misused” to undermine the Pallonji Group. As per Mistry, the NCLAT should have granted protection to the Pallonji Group against any future prejudicial conduct. He claimed that it was within the jurisdiction of the NCLAT to strike down the AoA.

Mistry in his cross appeal claimed that the Shapoorji-Pallonji group should be given proportionate representation on the Tata Sons Board. He claimed that the Pallonji group owns 18.37% of the equity share capital

MISTRY HAS SOUGHT MORE RELIEF FROM THE NCLAT, SAYING THAT THE DECEMBER ORDER DID NOT DO FULL JUSTICE

in Tata Sons making it the single largest, non-Tata shareholder.

As per the plea the affirmative votes in the hands of select Tata Sons directors should be struck down and the directors of the Pallonji group should be given similar powers of an affirmative vote.

While recounting several instances of the Pallonji group extending financial assistance to Tata sons, the cross appeal also claims the Pallonji Group to be the “guardian of Tata group”.

Advocates Harish Salve and

Aryama Sundaram appeared for the Tata Group and Mistry respectively. The division bench ordered for both the sides to complete pleadings in four weeks’ time.

Ratan Tata, who controls the Tata Trusts, which own twothirds of Tata Sons, the group’s holding company, in his appeal had claimed that the NCLAT had held him guilty “without explaining what the factual or legal foundation of the oppressive and prejudicial grounds were”.

In his petition filed in January, Tata submitted that Mistry was removed since “he had failed to timely capitalise on business opportunities when they presented themselves and Tata Sons’ financial performance, under his tenure, was also deeply unsatisfactory”.