Supreme Court to deliver verdict in Tata Sons-Cyrus Mistry case today

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Friday its judgement on the cross appeals filed by Tata Sons Pvt Ltd and Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd against the NCLAT order which had restored Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the over US $100 billion salt-to-software Tata conglomerate As per the Friday’s cause list uploaded on the apex court website, a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde will pronounce the verdict. The bench, also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, had on 17 December last year reserved the verdict in the matter. Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group had told the top court on 17 December that removal of Cyrus Mistry as the chairman of Tata Sons in a board meeting held in October 2016 was akin to a blood sport and ambush and was in complete violation of principles of corporate governance and pervasive violation of Articles of Association in the process. Tata Group, on other hand, had vehemently opposed the allegations and said there was no wrong doing and the board was well within its right to remove Mistry as the chairman. The apex court had on 10 January last year granted relief to Tata group by staying the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order of 18 December, 2019 by which Mistry was restored as the executive chairman of the conglomerate. Mistry had succeeded Ratan Tata as chairman of Tata Sons in 2012 but was ousted four years later. Tata Sons had earlier told the top court that it was not a ’two-group company’ and there was no ‘quasi-partnership’ between it and Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd. In his reply to the Tatas’ petition challenging his reinstatement by the NCLAT last December, Mistry had also demanded that group chairman emeritus Ratan Tata should reimburse all the expenses to Tata Sons since his departure in December 2012 in keeping with best global governance standards. Mistry is seeking representation in the company in proportion to the 18.37 percent stake held by his family, the cross-appeal has said. .