Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group on Wednesday questioned in the Supreme Court the manner in which Cyrus Mistry (pictured) was removed as chairman of Tata Sons in October 2016, and claimed that there was an “ex-facie” breach of Articles of Association in the process.
The counsel appearing for SP Group firms told a Bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde about the importance of selecting the chairman of Tata Sons, and said it is “so crucial” as it affects so many stakeholders in several countries.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for SP group firms, referred to the Articles of Association of Tata Sons and said it provides that a selection committee shall be constituted to recommend the appointment of a person as chairman of the board of directors, and the board may appoint the person so recommended as the chairman — subject to Article 121 — which requires the affirmative vote of all directors appointed pursuant to Article 104B.
He told the Bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, that the Article itself says that the same process shall be followed for the removal of the incumbent chairman.
“….this Article is breached in so far as the removal of Cyrus Mistry is concerned and therefore, there is ex-facie a breach of Article,” Divan told the Bench.
The apex court was hearing the cross appeals filed by Tata Sons and Cyrus Investments against the appellate tribunal NCLAT’s order, which had restored Cyrus Mistry as executive chairman of the over-$100-billion salt-to-software Tata conglomerate.
At the outset, Divan said he would indicate 10 broad points, including the alleged oppression and purported breach of Article.
“My eighth point is that since we are dealing with an equitable jurisdiction, the status of Tata Sons as the controlling entity at the very top, at the apex of Tata Group is very, very important. Why. Because actions that take place in the board and in the conduct impacts minority shareholders, group entities, employees and shareholders of other group companies as well,” he said during the arguments, which would continue on Thursday.
Divan, who referred to the facts recorded by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter, said, “My final point is that the reliefs sought, such as proportionate representation, are consistent with the Companies Act”.
He said when Mistry was removed as chairman on October 24, 2016, Ratan Tata was not a member of the Tata Sons board at the commencement of the meeting.
Dear Reader,
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.
Digital Editor
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU