Mistry's counsel failed to prove violation of law: Tata Sons to NCLT

Topics Tata vs Mistry

Tata Sons told the National Company Law Tribunal’s  (NCLT’s) Mumbai bench on Thursday that the counsel representing the Mistry family’s investment firms had failed to prove any of their pleas violated the law. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Tata Sons, was responding to the allegations of oppression and mismanagement submitted by Mistry’s counsel.

The two sides have been locked in a bitter legal dispute since December 2016, following the removal of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons. 

The only exception he added was Article 75, which pertained to compulsory transfer of shares owned by the Mistry family. Singhvi said none of the other articles cited by the counsel of the petitioners was unique or unheard of. Furthermore, all the shareholders agreed on the above articles over 51 years ago, he said. 

Mistry’s counsel Aryama Sundaram quoted articles that pertained to the general body quorum, the one relating to the fact that promoters must have one-third nomination, the one about an affirmative vote, and the one that was related to the notion that matters must be tabled before the board members.

On Wednesday, Sundaram pleaded that Article 75 of Tata Sons’ articles of association, which gave the powers to the Tata Trusts to get Mistry removed and his investment firms transfer their entire share-holding, be scrapped.

Singhvi argued that many of the articles, including 75 and 86, were from the inception of the company.

Business Standard is now on Telegram.
For insightful reports and views on business, markets, politics and other issues, subscribe to our official Telegram channel