Tata Sons replaced Cyrus Mistry as chairman in October 2016
new Delhi:
A plea by former Tata Sons Ltd chairman Cyrus Mistry to review the Supreme Court’s order last year, which favored his removal by the $100 billion salt-to-software conglomerate, was heard in an open court on March 9 Will go
In October 2016, Tata Sons replaced Mr Mistry as chairman, less than four years after he took over.
Cyrus Investments had requested the Supreme Court to reconsider its March 2021 order, which was in favor of the Tata group. In that hearing, a bench headed by the then Chief Justice SA Bobde had said that Tata’s decision to remove Mistry was correct.
A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramaniam considered the matter on February 15. However, Justice Ramasubramaniam disagreed and said in the order that the review petition deserves to be dismissed.
As per Supreme Court rules, review petitions are considered in-chamber, so the February 15 in-chamber meeting was the first round of scrutiny to decide whether the review petition would be heard by Mr.
Justice Subramaniam, noting his dissent, said in his order: “With the utmost respect, I am sorry for my inability to agree with the order. I have perused the review petitions and I have no valid authority to review the decision.” Aadhaar not found. Aadhaar does not fall within the parameters of a review raised in review petitions and hence the applications seeking oral hearing are liable to be dismissed.”
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal or NCLAT had in December 2019 reinstated Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons. That order challenged by Tata was quashed by the Supreme Court in March last year.
Ratan Tata, Honorary Chairman of Tata Sons, had said that the Supreme Court order validated the values and ethics that have always guided the Tata Group.
Mistry’s Shapoorji Pallonji Group had then told the Supreme Court that his removal as chairman of Tata Sons at a board meeting in October 2016 was a “blood game” and “ambush” and was in complete violation of the principles of corporate governance. And there was widespread violation. Articles of Association in process.
,