Full text: Cyrus Mistry says DoCoMo decision had unanimous OK of Tata Sons board

Ousted Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry in a statement has said that the allegations by the Tatas that he handled the DoCoMo issue “in a manner inconsistent with Tata culture and values” are baseless. The statement further said the agreement with Docomo had been executed before Mistry became executive chairman of the group. [caption id=“attachment_3069476” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Ratan Tata and Cyrus Mistry. AFP file photo[/caption] Earlier in a tell-all letter to Tata Sons board, Mystry had alleged that the deal structure of Tata Teleservices and DoCoMo raised many questions. On Friday, Mistry had refuted all allegations of not keeping the board in the know of the solar farms deal with Welspun. In the statement today, Mistry also said that to suggest that Mistry acted on his own is as false as it is mischievous and that all decisions were taken with unanimous approval of Tata Sons Board. Here’s is the full text of the statement by Mistry on DoCoMo deal: 1) Insinuations that the Docomo issue was handled under the watch of Mr. Mistry in a manner inconsistent with Tata culture and values are baseless. The suggestion that Ratan Tata and the trustees would not have approved of the manner in which the litigation was conducted is contrary to what transpired. 2) A number of discussions on the Docomo situation had been held in the Tata Sons board. Mr. Mistry had always mentioned that the Tatas should honour all commitments within the law. This stance is based on Tata Sons’ board view and was always consistent with the series of board meetings in which the Docomo issue was discussed. 3) To begin with, the agreement with Docomo had been executed before Mr. Mistry became executive chairman of the Tata Group. 4) Tatas under Mr. Mistry requested Docomo to join the Tatas in seeking the approval of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Docomo did not agree. Nevertheless, Tatas applied to the RBI for approval. Since RBI approval was not forthcoming, Docomo initiated arbitration. The Award was passed in favour of Docomo and against the Tatas. Tatas under Mr. Mistry did not challenge the Award in the UK. On the contrary, RBI was approached once again by the Tatas for permission to pay the amount awarded. RBI again refused permission. 5) Docomo sought enforcement of the Award in the Delhi High Court. In order to show their bonafides, Tatas deposited a sum in excess of Rs. 8,000 crores in Court. 6) Throughout the above process, Ratan Tata and N.A. Soonawala, Trustee, were kept informed and they participated in separate meetings held with Mr. Mistry. They also participated in the meeting with the legal counsel (who also happened to be a trustee of the Dorabji Tata trust) and who represented Tatas in the litigation. At all times Ratan Tata and Soonawala concurred and approved the course of action adopted by Tatas and as advised by legal counsel. 7) All decisions were taken with the unanimous approval of the Tata Sons Board. In fact, all decisions were collective decisions and the actions were consistent with every such collective decision. 8) In light of the above facts, to suggest that Mr. Mistry acted on his own, or contrary to “Tata values”, or without the knowledge and/or concurrence of Ratan Tata and Soonawala is as false as it is mischievous.