DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

SC stays NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of Tata Group

New Delhi, January 10 The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group, observing that there were “lacunae” in the orders passed by the Tribunal. At the outset, a bench...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

New Delhi, January 10

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group, observing that there were “lacunae” in the orders passed by the Tribunal.

At the outset, a bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant said the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision suffered from “basic errors and we have to hear the matter in detail”.

Advertisement

The bench said, “You (Cyrus) have been out of the saddle quite a long time. Does this hurt you….How does it hurt you today?”

The bench said there was no prayer in the petition for reinstatement of Mistry but the tribunal went ahead with it and ordered his reinstatement.

Advertisement

“We find there are lacunae in the judicial orders passed by the NCLAT,” the bench said issuing notices to Mistry and others.

Tata Sons Private Ltd (TSPL) challenged the December 18 decision of NCLAT that gave a big relief to Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd and Mistry, restoring him as the executive chairman of TSPL.

The bench posted the matter after four weeks.

The top court also ordered that the Tatas would not exercise power under Article 25 of the Company Law for pushing out shares of minority holders in the company.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for the company Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, submitted that instead of staying the NCLAT order, notice should be issued and two weeks be given for filing the reply.

However, the bench said, “Our first impression is not good about the order of the tribunal. The tribunal granted the prayer which was not prayed.”

Mistry’s side wanted to place a note about the interim arrangement which was not accepted by the bench.

Senior advocate NK Kaul appeared for Mistry while senior advocate Shyam Divan was appearing for the shareholders who were on Mistry’s side.

During the hearing, Sundaram said he was not pressing for the consequential relief of reinstatement of Mistry but was against the wrongful removal of Mistry from Tata.

Senior advocates AM Singhvi, Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi and Mohan Parasaran represented the Tatas. PTI

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper