|
|
|
SC notice to Tata Sons on cross-appeal by Mistry against NCLAT verdict
|
|
|
|
Top Stories |
|
|
|
|
SME Times News Bureau | 30 May, 2020
The Supreme Court on Friday
agreed to hear a cross-appeal filed by Cyrus Mistry, seeking more relief
than granted by the NCLAT verdict in December 2019.
The apex
court issued notice to Tata Sons Pvt Ltd (TSPL) and others, and tagged
the cross-appeals with the appeals filed by Tata Sons, Ratan Tata and
others challenging the NCLAT verdict, which reinstated Mistry as the
Executive Director of Tata Sons. Mistry and his firm sought removal of
anomalies in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) verdict
to get representation on the TSPL board.
A bench of Justices A.S
Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, which took up the matter through video
conferencing, said: "Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos... And
connected matters, if any. In the meantime, pleadings be completed by
the parties within a period of four weeks from today. List the matter(s)
thereafter."
In January, the apex court had stayed the NCLAT order.
Through
the cross-appeal, Mistry is seeking representation on the board in
proportion to the 18.37 per cent stake held by his family. The
cross-appeal argued that it was incumbent on the NCLAT to have granted
proportionate representation that would have ensured that the interests
of the SP Group are protected in future.
In the petition, Mistry
has described the group's relationship with Tatas as a quasi-partnership
relationship of a vintage of over 60 years, holding 18.37 per cent in
the equity share capital of Tata Sons and whose stake is now worth over
Rs 1.5 Lakh crore.
In January, the apex court had observed, "You
(Cyrus) have been out of the saddle for a long time...how does it hurt
you today." Tatas were represented through senior advocates A.M.
Singhvi, Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi and Mohan Parasaran.
A
heated argument broke out on the court's remark on the stay of the
tribunal judgement. Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, representing the
company Cyrus Investment Pvt Ltd, contended instead of staying the
tribunal judgement, the court could order status quo; and a notice could
be issued within two weeks to file a reply.
Mistry's side had also wanted to place a note apparently on an interim arrangement, but it was not accepted by the court.
Senior
advocate N.K. Kaul represented Mistry and senior advocate Shyam Divan
represented the shareholders on Mistry's side. Mistry's side also said
that they have been sidelined completely.
Sundaram contended
before the bench he was not pressing on relief in connection with the
reinstatement, instead he was against the wrong process adopted to
remove Mistry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customs Exchange Rates |
Currency |
Import |
Export |
US Dollar
|
66.20
|
64.50 |
UK Pound
|
87.50
|
84.65 |
Euro
|
78.25
|
75.65 |
Japanese
Yen |
58.85 |
56.85 |
As on 13 Aug, 2022 |
|
|
Daily Poll |
|
|
PM Modi's recent US visit to redefine India-US bilateral relations |
|
|
|
|
|
Commented Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|