Headline: Tatas downplay Mistry's NCLT petition
Strap: Say, his allegations in petition are not maintainable by law
PTI
Mumbai
With the National Company Law Tribunal refusing any interim relief to ousted Tata Sons chairman Cyrus P Mistry, the company on Thursday said it believes the petition is not maintainable in law.
In a statement, Tata Sons said the quasi-judicial body NCLT did not grant any interim reliefs.
Removed abruptly on October 24 as chairman of the holding firm of over USD 100 billion salt-to-software group, Mistry had on Tuesday moved NCLT seeking superseding of the Tata Sons board and appointment of an administrator to manage it.
Mistry's family holds over 18 per cent in Tata Sons while Tata Trusts headed by Ratan Tata, the newly appointed interim Chairman, has a 66 per cent stake.
“The parties have been directed to file replies and rejoinders in a fixed time table in January, 2017. The Court also ordered the petitioner (Mistry family's investment firms) not to seek for any further interim reliefs in the subject matter,” said the company statement.
Tata Sons, it said, “believes that the petition is not maintainable in law and the court will hear Tata Sons on this issue at the outset at the next hearing”.
It said it would not state any further since the matter is sub-judice. The petitioner's lawyer sought an interim relief to restrain Ratan Tata from attending any Board meetings of Tata Sons or interfering in the affairs of Tata Sons.
It also sought an interim relief from the tribunal to restrain Ratan Tata and other directors from removing Mistry as director of Tata Sons and other companies.
However, the prayer for interim relief was not considered today by NCLT.
The other prayers in the petition included superceding the board of Tata Sons and appointing an administrator to control its affairs. In the alternative, the petition sought to appoint a retired Supreme court judge as a non-executive Chairman of Tata Sons to appoint new independent directors.
The petition also prayed for a direction to Tata Sons not to issue any securities which result in dilution of the present paid-up capital of the petitioners in Tata Sons.
Alleging oppression in the holding company, the petition alleged that Tata Sons had made a veiled threat in a special notice under section 169 of Companies Act (to remove directors) to the extent that if Tata operating companies and non-promoting directors do not support the removal of Mistry as director, these companies would no longer have the right to use 'Tata' brand name.
The petition further alleged that Nusli Wadia, an independent director, was also sought to be removed in the same manner as Cyrus Mistry and that he had raised concerns about statements made by Kumar Bhattacharya, advisor and close aide of Ratan Tata, which may attract provisions under the regulations of insider trading.
The petitioner's lawyer, A Sundaram, said the allegations have not been rebutted by the respondents so far.
