Page 42 - 31JAN2020E3

COLUMN

Tata Sons-Cyrus Mistry

case sees twists and turns

NEWS & Former chairman of the company has no plans to rejoin it.
However, he vows to ‘vigorously pursue’ all options to protect
VIEWS his rights as a minority shareholder

BHARAT HITESHI
ith the National Com- conduct of the RoC, Mumbai as not being
Hiteshi is an pany Law Appellate illegal and being as per the provisions of
independent journalist- Tribunal (NCLAT) the Companies Act”.
turned-author and a dismissing the Registrar Besides, it had also urged “to delete
political commentator. W of Companies’ petition the aspersions made regarding any hur-
The views expressed seeking modification of the judgment ried help accorded by the RoC Mumbai
are his own in the Tata-Mistry case and Tata Sons to Tata Sons, except what was statutorily
obtaining a stay from the Supreme Court required” in para 181 of the order.
on the NCLAT orders, the case is witness- In the order, the appellate tribunal
ing new twists and turns. had quashed the conversion of Tata Sons
Tata Sons have moved the Supreme into a private company from a public
Court challenging the NCLAT order, say- firm and had termed it as “illegal”. The
ing the verdict “undermined corporate tribunal had said the action taken by the
democracy” and the “rights” of its board RoC to allow the firm to become a private
of directors. The petition filed on behalf company was against the provisions of
of the Tata Sons said, “Restoring Cyrus the Companies Act, 2013 and ‘prejudicial’
Mistry to the position as Chairman has and ‘oppressive’ to the minority member.
undermined corporate democracy and The NCLAT order said, “The Company
the rights of the board of directors”. Tata (Tata Sons) shall be recorded as ‘Public
Sons, Chairman Emeritus Ratan Tata and Company’. The RoC will make correc-
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) have tions in its record showing the Company
separately moved the Supreme Court as ‘Public Company”.
against the NCLAT order. In a fresh development, the NCLAT
On December 18, the tribunal ruled refused to modify its judgment passed in
reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the Executive the Tata-Mistry matter and dismissed the
Chairman of Tata Group and also termed petition filed by the Registrar of Com-
conversion of Tata Sons from a public panies (RoC), saying that there was no
company to a private one by the RoC as ground to amend the judgment. A two-
“illegal”. member bench headed by Chairman
The tribunal had termed the appoint- Justice SJ Mukhopadhyaya dismissed
ment of N Chandrasekaran, as ‘illegal’ RoC’s plea.
following the October 2016 sacking of On December 18, 2019, the NCLAT
Mistry as Tata Sons’ executive chairman. ordered restoration of Mistry as the
It had also directed the RoC to reverse executive chairman of the Tata Group.
Tata Sons’ status from a ‘private com- This judgement rendered N Chan-
pany’ to a ‘public company’. drasekaran’s appointment as execu-
In its urgent application, which was tive chairman of the company illegal.
mentioned on December 23, just five However, the appellate tribunal had
days after the NCLAT’s December 18, granted Tata group four weeks to file an
judgment, RoC Mumbai had asked the appeal before the Supreme Court against
appellate tribunal “to carry out requisite its judgment.
amendments” in Para 186 and 187 (iv) Cyrus Mistry later said that that he has
of its judgment “to correctly reflect the no plans to rejoin Tata. He, however, said

42