News

Tata-Mistry battle: How the two sides built their cases

Battle for the boardBCCL
1/4
Battle for the board
The NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons three years after he was sacked due to ‘non-performance' marked a turning point in the Tata-Mistry battle. While the order sprked off celebrations at the headquarters of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, a stunned Tata Group reacted with shock and surprise. Here is a look at how the two sides built up their cases.
​The Tata Camp: In accordance with the Companies ActAgencies
2/4
​The Tata Camp: In accordance with the Companies Act
>> Ratan Tata's counsel Harish Salve denied allegations against him. Salve and Tata Sons counsel AM Singhvi said allegations of removal of Mistry are in nature of "directorial complaints" which cannot be raised in a petition under section 241 of the Companies Act.


>> Actions of Tata Sons are as per provisions of Articles of Associations, Companies Act.
​The Mistry Camp: Nosy neighboursBCCL
3/4
​The Mistry Camp: Nosy neighbours
>> Ratan rata and N Soonawala kept interfering in affairs of Tata Sons.

>> Attempt was made to covert Tata Sons into a pvt ltd co when these proceedings were sub judice, in a marked departure from long legacy of it being a public limited co having revenue in excess of $100bn and control over 100 operating companies, including 29 listed and public companies

>> Consistent conduct expropriating the rights and interests of the appellants in every manner and form has given ground to a legimate apprehension of expropriation of the appellants' shareholding by abuse of Article 75.
The Tata Camp: No hard feelingsAgencies
4/4
The Tata Camp: No hard feelings
>> Mistry's was a purely professional appointment as chairman. It is not an entrenced right. His removal was not on account of some personal ill-will against him and cannot be canvassed as case of oppression or prejudice.

>> His removal did not impinge on any right enjoyed by him as a shareholder of Tata Sons.

>> Shanghvi said there are no provisions in the articles which entitles Mistry to participate in management of Tata Sons or nominante any directors of to the board. Tata Sons is not a quasi-partnership, by any stretch of imagination.
Text Size:AAA
Markets Data

*

Success
This article has been saved