Page 47 - 31DEC2019E-4

CORPORATES

Group had taken over as successor to longed hearing, has now restored Mis- Chandra and industrialists Ajay Pira-
Ratan Tata who had resigned his execu- try as the executive chairman of Tata mal and Venu Srinivasan. It also saw
tive powers in the Tata group on De- Group. According to legal experts, Tata his removal as director from all group
cember 28, 2012, upon turning 75. How- Sons can now file an appeal against the companies almost simultaneously.
ever, Mistry, sixth chairman of Tata order in four weeks as the tribunal said Mistry deftly converted the board-
Sons was removed as Chairman of Tata the restoration order would be opera- room drama into a battle between
Sons in October 2016 and also removed tional only after four weeks. majority shareholder-versus-minority
as director on board subsequently. In a statement issued by Tata Sons, shareholder challenging decisions like
A long legal battle ensued thereafter the company said “The NCLAT order converting Tata Sons from a public
between Tata Sons and Mistry whose appears to even go beyond the specific company into a private firm. The Reg-
family owned 18 per cent stake in Tata reliefs sought by the Appellant. Tata istrar of Companies had given its go
Sons. Mistry had accused Tata Sons of Sons strongly believes in the strength ahead in August 2018 to go private from
oppressing minority stakeholder views of its case and will take appropriate le- a deemed public company since 1976
and raised doubts over the functioning gal recourse”. as per the provisions of the Companies
of the group. It may be recalled that after the exit Act.
When matter reached the National of Cyrus Mistry, Tata Sons board had The NCLAT has observed that the
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), it dis- brought in new independent directors conversion from ‘public company’ to
missed petitions filed by two invest- such as private equity investor Amit ‘private company’, the action taken by
ment firms, Cyrus Investments Private the Registrar of Companies was against
Limited and Sterling Investments Corp The stakes are high in the provisions of Section 14 of the Com-
challenging Mistry’s removal from the panies Act, 2013 and ‘prejudicial’ and
position. Initially, he moved NCLT po- the battle for control of ‘oppressive’ to the minority members
sitioning himself as a victim citing mi- a group with over $110 and depositors, and is, therefore, con-
nority shareholders rights and thereaf- sidered illegal.
ter at the NCLAT. billion in revenues, Focus would be on both Cyrus Mis-
Cyrus Mistry challenged NCLT order try and Tata Sons as to how far the legal
before the Appellate Tribunal — NCLAT. 29 listed firms under battle go? Will the acrimony end soon?
Mistry had argued that his removal was its belt, operations Will all differences be sorted out ami-
not justified under the Companies Act cably? After all at stake is the reputation
and also alleged that there was mis- in 160 countries, of India’s most prestigious and oldest
management of affairs in Tata Sons and employing over business conglomerate.
group. The NCLAT, which had reserved
its order in July this year after a pro- 660,000 people LETTERS@TEHELKA.COM

47