SC sets aside NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry as Tata Group chief

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 26

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order restoring Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Group.

Allowing the Tata Group’s appeal against the NCLAT’s December 18, 2019 order, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice SA Bobde said, “All the questions of law are liable to be answered in favour of the appellants Tata Group and the appeals filed by the Tata Group are liable to be allowed and those by Shapoorji Pallonji Group are liable to be dismissed.”

Last year, the top court had stayed the NCLAT order by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the conglomerate.

Dismisses SP Group’s plea on ownership

• The apex court also dismissed a plea of Shapoorji Pallonji Group seeking separation of ownership interests in Tata Sons Pvt Ltd
• The Shapoorji Pallonji Group, which owns 18.37% shares in Tata Sons, had said the latter moved the top court to block its plan to pledge shares for raising funds and that reeked of vindictiveness and oppression of minority shareholder rights

After the pronouncement, Tata Group stocks gained up to 6%. Tata group chairman emeritus Ratan Tata hailed the top court’s order, saying “It reinforces the fairness and justice displayed by our judiciary.”

In a tweet, Tata said, “It is not an issue of winning or losing. After relentless attacks on my integrity and the ethical conduct of the group, the judgement upholding all the appeals of Tata Sons is a validation of the values and the ethics that have always been the guiding principle of the group.”

Shapoorji Pallonji Group had contended before the Supreme Court that removal of Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons in a Board meeting held in October 2016 was akin to a “blood sport” and “ambush” and was in complete violation of principles of corporate governance and pervasive violation of Articles of Association in the process.

The Tatas had opposed the allegations and said there was no wrongdoing and the Board was well within its right to remove Mistry.