Business & Investment

Tata Group | Cyrus Mistry: Tata-Mistry Case: Supreme Court rulings in favor of Tata Group

The Supreme Court today voted in favor of the long-awaited verdict in the Tata Mistry case, one of the worst conference room brawls in the history of Indian companies. Tata Group Junk appeal by Cyrus Investments.

The verdict was sentenced by a bench consisting of Judge AS Bopanna and Judge V Lamas Bramanian, led by Judge SA Bopan.

The verdict comes after years of lengthy legal proceedings, bitter and counter-accusations, and non-prohibited confusion.

This proceeding is Tatason’s And Cyrus Investments Recovery Cyrus Mystery By order of December 2019, as Chairman of Tata Sons by NCLAT.

In this case, the well-resolved principle was overturned by NCLAT, the Supreme Court observed during today’s verdict.

NCLAT’s ruling ordered Mistry to return as chairman of Tata Sons, a salt-to-software conglomerate of over 100 billion, and as a director of three other Tata Group entities.

The Tata Group was later bailed out by the SC, who maintained NCLAT’s orders at a hearing in January 2020.

Shapoorji Pallonji Scion Cyrus was successful Ratan Tata As Chief of Tatason’s in 2012, among the wonderful Houpla and fanfare. But four years later, he was rudely shown the door.

In its appeal, the Tata Group stated that there was no misconduct involved in Mistry’s expulsion as chairman in October 2016, adding that the board was “within the right to do so.”

Meanwhile, the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) group argued that expulsion was similar to “blood sports”, saying it was a complete violation of all the principles of the Articles of Incorporation and corporate governance.

Last December, the same bench that made today’s verdict withheld a verdict on the matter.

Tata Sons told SC that it was not a “two group company” and there was no “quasi-partnership” with Cyrus Investments.

Mistry, who represented the Shapurji Paronji Group on Tata’s board, sought a representative that was commensurate with the 18.37% stake in his family. He also stated that Ratan Tata should reimburse Tatason’s for all costs since his departure in December 2012, in line with the highest global governance standards.

On behalf of Tata Sands, senior advocate Harish Salve has submitted that Mistry has left and later stinks. Meanwhile, on behalf of Cyrus Investments, senior advocate CA Sundaram claimed that Mistry had been removed rather than left.

The main points of the SC verdict:

— All legal issues in favor of the Tata Group

— A well-solved principle overturned by NCLAT

— Leave it to Mystry’s Tatasons to take a legitimate route to resolve the issue of shares

— Cyrus Investments plea, Sterling Investments rejected

— SC leaves Tata Sons stock valuation issue unresolved

Tata Group | Cyrus Mistry: Tata-Mistry Case: Supreme Court rulings in favor of Tata Group Tata Group | Cyrus Mistry: Tata-Mistry Case: Supreme Court rulings in favor of Tata Group

Back to top button