Skip to main content

CASE ANALYSIS OF TATA VS MISTRY JUDGEMENT

 CASE ANALYSIS OF TATA VS MISTRY JUDGEMENT


INTRODUCTION

In the year 2021, the Supreme Court of India delivered its long-awaited decision in the TATA

Group-Cyrus Mistry dispute. The apex court overturned the National Company Law

Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling of December 18, 2019, which came as a huge relief to

the TATA Group. Cyrus Mistry was reinstated as executive chairman of Tata Group by

NCLAT orders in 2019.

On a petition filed by Tata Sons against the NCLAT judgement, a bench led by Chief Justice

of the Supreme Court S A Bobde and including Justices A S Bopanna and V

Ramasubramanian delivered the verdict.

After years of protracted legal proceedings, furious accusations and counter-accusations, and

no-holds-barred mudslinging, a decision has been reached.

NCLAT was established under Section 410 of the Companies Act (CA), 2013 to hear

appeals from the National Company Law Tribunal's orders (NCLT) .It also serves as an

Appellate Tribunal for appeals against NCLT(s) rulings made under the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (IBC). Moreover it’s an Appellate Tribunal for appeals against any

direction, decision, or order issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).


FACTS OF THE CASE

In December 2012, Cyrus Shapoorji Pallonji, a scion of Shapoorji Pallonji, succeeded Ratan

Tata as CEO of Tata Sons. He was, however, abruptly dismissed four years later.Mistry was

fired from his position on October 24, 2016, after a majority of the company's board of

directors voted to fire him.Tata Sons' Executive Chairman has been named N

Chandrasekaran.Things between them became acrimonious, and the case ended up in

court.The NCLAT declared the proceedings of October 24, 2016, to be unlawful in December

2019.The order had been contested by both Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry.

The Tata Group had stated in its appeal that there was no misconduct in Mistry's removal as

Chairman in October 2016.The Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, on the other hand, had

contended that the ouster had completely violated the Articles of Association and all

principles of corporate governance.


SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS:

1. Minority shareholders or their representatives are not automatically entitled to a seat on

the private company’s board like a small shareholder’s representative.

2. The provisions contained in the Companies Act 2013 only protects the rights of small

shareholders of listed companies by asking such companies to have on their board at

least one director elected by such small shareholders.

3. Since the Mistry family and the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group are not small

shareholders, but minority shareholders, there is no statutory provision which gives

them the “right to claim proportionate representation,” on the board of Tata Sons.

4. Private companies, which have minority shareholders, are free to make an enabling

provision but are under no statutory obligation to give minority shareholder seats on

the board.


SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT:

Though the decision has no direct impact on minority shareholders' rights, they will need to

ensure that they have a contract with the majority shareholders or the company's promoters to

ensure that they have enough representation on the board of directors.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more