New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the plea submitted by Cyrus Mistry, former chairman of Tata Sons, to have the remarks made about him in the judgement passed by the Supreme Court last year in the matter concerning his ousting from the company.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli decided to hear the matter after 10 days. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas appearing for Mistry submitted that certain remarks were made against him in the final judgement and comments affect his reputation, integrity and character, LiveLaw reported.
The case revolves around Tata Sons' decision to remove Mistry from the position of chairperson which he had alleged was a form of oppression of minority shareholders. The decision by Tata and Sons was set aside in a judgement passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which in turn was appealed by Tata, and said NCLAT order was stayed by the apex court in January 2020.
Last year, the Supreme Court bench led by the then Chief Justice of India SA Bobde had held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their separation terms.
Since the decision was not prejudicial, the Tribunal had no right to interfere in the dismissal of Mistry under the Companies Act, the SC had said.
Mistry's family - the Shapoorji Pallonji family with an eponymous business group that spans construction, real estate and engineering business, owns 18.47% of the equity capital of Tata Sons, the main holding company of the Tata Group.
66% of Tata Sons is owned by Tata Trusts, currently controlled by Ratan Tata, the group's former chairman. Differences between the two, Cyrus Mistry and Ratan Tata, are at the heart of this bitter falling out.
In 2020, Mumbai bench of the income tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) had retracted the critical remarks it made on Cyrus Mistry, alleging that typos had crept into the order issued on December 28 2019, which the Mistry family had alleged were "wild accusations".