In the ongoing tussle, in Supreme Court, between that Tata Group and Cyrus Mistry, the Chairman Emeritus of Tata Sons, Ratan N Tata has fired back arguing that he had “no hesitation” in saying that through this case, the Mistry family is seeking to gain a controlling hand in the management of Tata Sons. He further alleged that the Mistry family, acting through Cyrus Mistry, is seeking to undermine the rights of Tata Trusts as shareholders of Tata Sons.

Share Market Live

NSE

Ratan Tata has urged the apex court to look through the “smokescreen” of corporate governance, claimed by Mistry, and to examine the real intent and motives behind the plea.

In December of 2019, NCLAT had reinstated Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson of Tata Sons and had upheld charges of oppression of minority shareholders. Tata Sons challenge it before the Supreme Court. The top court, in Jan, had stayed the NCLAT judgment. In May, Cyrus Mistry also challenged the NCLAT judgment. In the cross-appeal, Cyrus Mistry has sought for “proportionate representation” for the Pallonji Group, on the Tata Sons Board. Mistry claims a “Quasi-Partnership” between the two groups. Ratan Tata has filed his reply to the cross-appeal.

In his reply, Ratan Tata argues that the conduct of Cyrus Mistry is deplorable and personally motivated. He expressed sadness at Mistry using letters exchanged between him and Cyrus Mistry’s father, as legal contracts, to “bargain a seat” on the Board.

Rata Tata has submitted that the deep hostility and personal enmity shown by Cyrus Mistry made it clear that he had become a “Trojan Horse”, who had to be removed in the interest of the Group. He also alleged that Mistry cherry picked information and sensationalized financial health issues to cause instability in Tata Group Cos.

Responding to claims of a “quasi partnership” between Tata and Pallonji Group, Ratan Tata denied that any such partnership existed. He has pleaded that Mistry’s claims of quasi partnership with Tata’s is conceptually flawed and baseless.

Tata submits that in 1965 the Pallonji Group bought 124 shares based on commercial merit, and that no further rights flowed from the share purchase. He argues that Mistry is misinterpreting and mischaracterizing commercial decisions of the Pallonji group, to engage with Tata’s. He urges that it would be “ludicrous” to suggest that there was a joint venture or partnership between Tata and Mistry. He argues in his reply, that despite “legal acrobatics”, merely shareholding can’t translate into rights of a quasi-partnership. He also submits that even under the Companies Act there was no obligation to provide “proportionate representation” and that the Articles of Association were silent on the issue.

Ratan Tata also rejected allegations that he orchestrated Mistry’s removal as Chairperson, due to “insecurities”. His reply argues that Mistry removal was an urgent and remedial measure taken in larger interest of the group. He further urges that the Tata Sons board consisting of a Former Ambassador, Defence Secretary and Dean of Harvard, had voted in favor of removing Mistry. He argues that Mistry could be free to disagree with the Board’s decision, but should have respected it.