The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favour of Tata Sons, allowing the conglomerates’ appeals against the NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as Chairman.
The Apex court set aside the order which allowed reinstatement of Cyrus Mistry as Chairman of Tata Sons. On January 10, 2020, the top court had stayed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) judgment.
“All the questions of law are liable to be favoured for Tata 1group. The appeals are allowed by Tata group,” Chief Justice SA Bobde said.
The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, had on December 17 last year reserved the verdict in the matter.
Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group had told the top court On December 17 that removal of Cyrus 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.
Tata Group, on other hand, had vehemently opposed the allegations and said there was no wrong doing and the board was well within its right to remove Mistry as the chairman.
The apex court had on January 10 last year granted relief to Tata group by staying the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order of December 18, 2019 by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the conglomerate.
Mistry had succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Sons in 2012 but was ousted four years later.
Tata Sons had earlier told the top court that it was not a ‘two-group company’ and there was no ‘quasi-partnership’ between it and Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd.
In his reply to the Tatas’ petition challenging his reinstatement by the NCLAT last December, Mistry had also demanded that group chairman emeritus Ratan Tata should reimburse all the expenses to Tata Sons since his departure in December 2012 in keeping with best global governance standards.
Mistry is seeking representation in the company in proportion to the 18.37% stake held by his family, the cross-appeal has said.