The NCLAT had said Tata Sons chairman emeritus Ratan Tata's actions against Cyrus Mistry were oppressive.
Tata Sons approached the Supreme Court today challenging the restoration of Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the group by company law tribunal NCLAT last month. Cyrus Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of Tata Sons, one of the country's oldest and largest business houses, on December 18 by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), three years after his dramatic sacking at a board meeting following which Ratan Tata took over as interim chairman. In its petition, Tata Sons sought a stay on the company law tribunal's order as well as it declaring the selection and appointment of N Chandrashekaran as chairperson of the holding company of over $ 110 billion salt-to-software conglomerate as "illegal". The lawyers for Tata Sons requested for an early hearing of the petition once the top court reopens on January 6 after the Christmas vacation.
Here are the top 5 quotes from the Tata Sons' petition in the Supreme Court:
"The NCLAT order, in one stroke of the pen, pulled down the governance and corporate structure of Tata Sons so painstakingly put together by its founders, in the spirit of trusteeship and responsibility, in the course of last one century."
"By ordering Cyrus Mistry's reinstatement, the NCLAT order has created confusion in the working of important corporate entities, some of which are listed companies."
"The tenure of Mr Cyrus Mistry as the Chairman and Director of Tata Sons expired in March 2017... He didn't seek reinstatement but NCLAT went ahead and ordered it."
"Another serious error in NCLAT finding is that Tata Sons continued as a 'Public Company' even after the change of law and on that basis, coming to a further finding that the action of the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai ("RoC") taking on record this change was illegal."
"The direction restraining 'Mr Ratan N Tata' and 'the nominee of the Tata Trusts from taking any decision in advance which requires majority decision of the Board of Directors or in the Annual General Meeting' is wholly nebulous and seeks to stifle the exercise of rights of the shareholders and board members, resulting in their disenfranchisement which cripples corporate democracy."
Post a comment