Tata Sons vs Cyrus Mistry case: NCLAT questions language of NCLT judgment

Topics Tata vs Mistry

Cyrus Mistry Former Chairman, Tata Sons
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has adjourned the hearing of the Cyrus Mistry versus Tata Sons case till August 14. In the hearing on Wednesday, NCLAT questioned if the National Company Law Tribunal's (NCLT's) Mumbai Bench had written a biased order. The Mistry family had moved the appellate tribunal challenging the order. 

NCLAT Chairperson Justice S J Mukhopadhyay said, "When I was going through the order, I was a little perplexed whether a proper examination was done or not. I do not demean a judge. But he says we have to protect the future. See how far he has gone. That means he is a protector of a particular company. He says we will have to protect the interests of the company, and that too, in a judgment." Tata Sons' counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi seconded Mukhopadhyay's observation on the language of the order, but said the appellate tribunal should pass a judgment based on merit and not just the language of the Mumbai Bench order. He said Tata Sons had been a private limited company for the past 101 years, since 1917. 

The company was deemed to be a public company in 1976 "only on the ground of turnover, according to Section 43(A) of the Companies Act."

On October 24, 2016, Mistry was dismissed from the post of chairman of Tata Sons. In September last year, it was decided that Tata Sons would be turned into a private 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