The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the NCLAT order restoring Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of the Tata Group. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said it is allowing the appeals filed by Tata Group.

Share Market Live

NSE

"The order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated December 18, 2019 is set aside," the bench said.

It said, "...all the questions of law are liable to be answered in favour of the appellants Tata Group and the appeals filed by the Tata Group are liable to be allowed and SP Group is liable to be dismissed."

The apex court had on January 10 last year granted relief to Tata group by staying the NCLAT order by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the conglomerate.

Mistry had succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Sons in 2012 but was ousted four years later.

Here are the key highlights in the Supreme Court verdict on Tata Sons versus Cyrus Mistry case today:

Abhishek Manu Singhvi: Unfortunately there was a lot of angst caused to the principal persona concerned. The verdict is going to be a precedent for future corporate governance cases. The terms of separation is not a litigable issue it has to be decided by consensus. The valuation is not a matter of the court and the valuers will decide. READ MORE

Ratan Tata in a tweet: "I appreciate and am grateful for the judgement passed by the honourable Supreme Court today. It is not an issue of winning or losing. After relentless attacks on my integrity and the ethical conduct of the group, the judgement upholding all the appeals of Tata Sons is a validation of the values and ethics that have always been the guiding principles of the group. It reinforces the fairness and justice displayed by our judiciary."

pic.twitter.com/CjAR6LzIah

— Ratan N. Tata (@RNTata2000) March 26, 2021

Suhas Tuljapurkar, Legasis: Issues related to corporate governance would be at the foreground on the judgment.

ALSO READ | Tata-Mistry case verdict: Victory for Tata Sons; here’s what experts have to say

VR Mehta, Tata Trust: Supreme Court’s order is a great relief; The legal battle leaves a lot of scars. Cyrus Mistry's Group wanted to show as if Tata Sons was a partnership firm. The SP Group was only a shareholder in Tata Sons. The issue Of valuation can ultimately be resolved. It will be speculation on my part on the way Tata Group will take on valuation. Tata Group is known to value its ethical standards. We have in Ratan Tata and N Chandra very sagacious and fair leaders.

Cherag Balsara: Supreme Court should have addressed the valuation of the SP Group's stake.

Gopal Jain: Tata Sons' victory is a comprehensive victory. It holds up standards of good corporate governance. Also, courts do not intervene in valuation matters. The valuation of SP Group's holding should be left to subject experts.

At this stage, we can not adjudicate on fair compensation for Pallonji Group for their shareholding, Supreme Court has said in its judgment in the Tata Mistry case.

At this stage, we can not adjudicate on fair compensation for Pallonji Group for their shareholding, #SupremeCourt has said in its judgment in the #TataMistry case pic.twitter.com/4Ia61i1cS8

— CNBC-TV18 (@CNBCTV18Live) March 26, 2021

CJI Bobde-bench reads judgment in the Tata vs Mistry case: All questions are to be answered in favour of Tata sons. The appeals of the Tata Sons are to be allowed, Pallonji Group plea to be dismissed. NCLAT judgment of Dec 2019 has been stand aside. At this stage, we can adjudicate on fair compensation for Pallonji Group for their shareholding. We leave it open for parties to decide between themselves as under Article 75.

CJI led bench assembles. IMP: Tata Mistry is the third of the three judgments due to be pronounced today.

CJI Bobde-led bench of SC, which is due to pronounce the Tata-Mistry judgment, is yet to assemble.

Chief Justice of India SA Bobde-led bench has to pronounce three judegments. Tata Mistry case is the third judgment. The bench will assemble shortly.

Tata vs Cyrus Mistry: Ahead of the Supreme Court verdict today, here are the key facts and timeline of the legal battle

If it wasn’t for the near-divine status of the parties butting heads in the Mistry-Tata spat, we could probably have put it all down to alpha male aggression. In truth, the unfolding dispute had at least two ‘burning questions’ over elements of corporate governance that demanded judicial determination. First, who controls a company; the majority shareholder or its Board of Directors? Second, if an independent director finds himself in conflict with the majority shareholder, should the law allow the shareholder to remove him? With the filing of the appeal against NCLATs December 18 order in Mistry v Tata Sons Limited, the Supreme Court will have the burden of addressing at least one of these two questions. READ MORE

In January 2020, Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the NCLAT judgment that restored Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson of Tata Sons.

#TataMistry Case | In January 2020, Supreme Court had stayed the operation of NCLAT judgment that restored Cyrus Mistry as Chairperson of Tata Sons pic.twitter.com/zCfm6w9Ny7

— CNBC-TV18 (@CNBCTV18Live) March 26, 2021

The bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, had on December 17 last year reserved the verdict in the matter.

Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group had told the top court On December 17 that the removal of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons in a board meeting held in October 2016 was akin to a blood sport and ambush and was in complete violation of principles of corporate governance and pervasive violation of Articles of Association in the process.

Tata Group, on other hand, had vehemently opposed the allegations and said there was no wrongdoing and the board was well within its right to remove Mistry as the chairman.

The apex court had on January 10 last year granted relief to Tata group by staying the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order of December 18, 2019, by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the conglomerate.

Mistry had succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Sons in 2012 but was ousted four years later.

Tata Sons had earlier told the top court that it was not a 'two-group company' and there was no 'quasi-partnership' between it and Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd.

In his reply to the Tatas' petition challenging his reinstatement by the NCLAT last December, Mistry had also demanded that group chairman emeritus Ratan Tata should reimburse all the expenses to Tata Sons since his departure in December 2012 in keeping with best global governance standards. Mistry is seeking representation in the company in proportion to the 18.37 percent stake held by his family, the cross-appeal has said.

(Edited by : Ajay Vaishnav)

First Published:Mar 26, 2021 9:36 AM IST