The latest, in a long exchange of legal salvos in the Tata-Mistry feud, has been fired by Ratan N Tata, noting that the decision to oust Cyrus Mistry was not a “pleasant” one. However, in the same breath, Tata’s rejoinder also refers to Mistry as a “Trojan Horse”, whose actions and allegations were undignified and not in keeping with the Tata Credo.

Also read:

'Adapt and create': Ratan Tata takes to Instagram to pen down note for entrepreneurs amid COVID-19 crisis

In December of 2019, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had reinstated Mistry as chairperson of Tata Sons, and upheld charges of oppression of minority shareholders. Later, Tata Sons had challenged it before the Supreme Court.

The top court in January had stayed the NCLAT judgment and in May, Mistry also challenged the NCLAT judgment. In the cross-appeal, Mistry had sought for proportionate representation for the Pallonji Group on the Tata Sons board and claimed that a quasi-partnership exist between the two groups.

In the rejoinder, Tata said he would like to bow out of any debate on his performance as against that of Mistry at the helm of Tata Sons. He noted that the respective performance would be for the stakeholders to judge as Mistry has questioned his performance to defend himself.

Also read: On Valentine's Day eve, Ratan Tata reveals his own 'love story'

Tata also argued that Mistry has complained of the legacy that he inherited, and this reflected poorly on him, as he was picked for guiding the group into the future and not to criticise the past.

Seemingly defending the Nano Project, Tata expressed dismay at Mistry questioning “emotional” decisions. Tata writes that Tata Group endeavor are based on passion and emotion, and not short term returns. Interestingly, he also points out how his predecessors such as Sir Dorab Tata pledged wife’s jewelry to save Tata Steel and how JRD Tata’s passion for aviation led to Air India.

On the ouster, Tata records that Mistry has questioned why Board Meeting Minutes were silent on reasons for this ouster. Tata responds that there is dignity in leaving things unsaid, and that this decorum is maintained across Tata boards. He also records that Mistry was given an opportunity to leave gracefully, before the board resolved to oust him.

Also read: Ratan Tata has this advice for startups of the future

Tata argued that it was clear that the reason Mistry had argued about oppression is due to the personal hurt and grievance stemming from the ouster. Tata argued that it was ironic for Pallonji Group to claim oppression with their investment of Rs 69 crore in 1965, growing by ,2100 times, to Rs 1.5 lakh crore.

Finally, Tata urged the Supreme Court to look through Mistry's "façade", arguing that Mistry is playing the victim card by exaggerating and mischaracterising facts.

First Published:Aug 4, 2020 10:57 PM IST