SC Stays NCLAT order of reinstating Cyrus Mistry

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

On 10th January 2020, the Supreme Court comprising of three-judge bench led by Chief Justice SA Bobde issued notices to all parties on the slew of petitions filed by several Tata companies and top executives including chairman emeritus Ratan Tata against the order of NCLAT.

Tata Sons challenged the order of NCLAT saying that the order had put at risk the holding company’s efforts to cut costs, sell assets and boost growth across Tata group companies. Additionally, it also said the order had created “confusion in the working of important corporate entities, some of which are listed companies”. Tata Group of Companies also said the order restoring Mistry’s directorship in three group companies was incoherent with corporate democracy because his removal was done by the approval of shareholders.

The SC heard the parties and decided to put a stay on the order of NCLAT for reinstating Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman. The advocate representing the minority shareholders, Mr CA Sundaram, opposed any stay on the order stating out that Mistry had clarified that he was not interested in “returning” to the chairman’s post. Sundaram further argued that Mistry was standing for the rights of the minority shareholders and whether rules of corporate governance would concern them. He defended the NCLAT order saying that the tribunal had only “moulded” consequential relief as it had deemed fit. “There is nothing wrong with it. Such orders of the NCLAT are upheld every day by the top court.”

The Tatas, through senior advocate Harish Salve opposed any status quo and instead sought a stay on the order of NCLAT. In an effort to convince the court that no change would be made to the existing situation on the ground, Salve offered an assurance. “We do not propose to take any steps under Article 75 (of the articles of association of the company),” he said.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there were “basic errors” in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s observations. “Our first impression is not good about the order of the tribunal,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde. “The tribunal granted the prayer which was not prayed for.” The Bench noted that never before had there been a judgment of this nature under the Companies Act. With this stay, the company can get back to business as usual with N Chandrasekaran at the helm of Tata Sons. The Mistry camp has four weeks to respond to the court notice, though senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for Cyrus Investment had sought two weeks to file a reply. The court has ordered the Tata group not to exercise power under Article 75 of the Company.

The SC stay acts as interim relief to the Tata Group of Companies. On the other hand, Cyrus Mistry has ruled out pursuing chairmanship of Tata Sons or any other executive positions at group entities but asserted that he is interested in a board seat at the holding company. Ruling out taking up any position at the group or any group entities, Mistry said that he is “walking the talk” to uphold corporate governance, and this is not a quest for position or power and he “will not be pursuing the executive chairmanship of Tata Sons, or directorship of TCS, Tata Teleservices or Tata Industries”.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -