LAST UPDATED: March 26, 2021, 1:43 p.m.
New Delhi (Anish Yande): The Supreme Court has announced its verdict in the Tata-Mistry case. The apex court has ruled in favor of Tata Group, backing the removal of Cyrus Mistry. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision has been set aside through the court’s ruling.
Supreme Court rules in favour of Tata Sons:
The Supreme Court’s verdict was pronounced by a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde. The bench comprised Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice A S Bopanna. On December 17, the bench reserved judgment in the case after hearing several senior advocates including Shyam Divan, and Harish Salve.
Previously, NCLAT had ruled in favor of Cyrus Mistry and ordered Mistry’s reinstatement as executive chairman of Tata Sons. The tribunal had ruled to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as a director in three other Tata Group entities.
The apex court rejected the claims that the removal of Mistry as the chairman was ‘oppressive’. Chief Justice Bobde stated that every issue raised in the dispute is in favor of the Tata Group.
Tata Groups against Shapoorji Pallonji Group:
Cyrus Mistry, the scion of the Shapoorji Pallonji group, was appointed as the successor of Ratan Tata in 2012. Mistry was appointed to the position of the chief of Tata Sons. However, Mistry was removed from his post after four years.
On October 24, 2016, the board of directors at Tata Sons voted to replace Mistry as chairman. Mistry was also removed as director of Tata Sons on February 6, 2017.
During the appeal, Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group had appealed that the removal of Mistry was similar to a ‘blood sport’. The minority shareholder group stated that the removal was a violation of the trust and good faith between Tata Group and SP Group. The Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group termed the move as oppressive and illegal.
Tata Sons had stated that the board was ‘within its rights to do so’ addressing the removal of Mistry. Tata Sons took a stand against the NCLAT’s decision, with senior advocate Harish Salve stating that the NCLAT’s decisions were declared on the incorrect basis that Tata Sons had continued to be a public company.
Image Credit: Google