[ad_1]
The National Business Court, which dismissed Cyrus Mistry's claim against Tata Sons earlier this week, ruled that all allegations made by the former president against Ratan Tata, Tata Sounds and companies of the group are devoid of
Instead, during his tenure as chairman of Tata Sons, and a director on the board of directors of Tata Sons, Mistry tried to win "a unbridled control over the group ", the court held in his order.
In a 368-page judgment released yesterday, a special bench of the NCLT, Mumbai plunged deep into the story of the Tata family and its business, praising all along, virtues, and "benevolence" "extended by the Tatas" The company "for decades.
The bench admitted that he got such information about the origins of the group and the past through "Britannica, and Wikipedia", but considering this story and the merits of the Tata group, it is little likely that the group could have made prejudicial business decisions solely for personal
"The situation forced us to give the context of the Tatas to get an idea of the values that this family cherished and to see if the Tatas could do anything to have personal gains for self-enrichment?"
The court also criticized Mistry for leveling charges against Ratan Tata and director N Soonawalla
After his ouster as president of Tata Sons on October 24, 2016, Mistry proposed the NCLT to through his two families … He also launched several charges against the patriarch Ratan Tata group and accused him of interfering in the daily business decisions of the group companies. According to Mistry, such interference has caused losses to the group of more than $ 105 billion dating back to the mid-1860s.
Mistry alleged that Tata and other trustees, such as Soonawalla, acted as a corporation. The court, however, dismissed the allegation above, saying that considering that Ratan Tata runs the Tata trusts that owns more than 66 percent of Tata So ns, it is unlikely that he will. it would have caused prejudice to group companies, or to trusts.
"The petitioners have tried so disgustingly to drag the concept of shadow directors to label Tata and Soonawalla as shadow directors.The petitioner has absolutely failed to to prove that Tata and Soonawalla acted in a way detrimental either to the interest of the company or to the petitioner's interest, "said the court in the order.
from other letters, from Mistry to Tata, Soonawalla and others and also from Tata and Soonawalla to Mistry, it is evident that Tata as well as Soonawalla have responded to the advice not only of Mistry, but also of other officers of Tata Sons as well as of the group "There is a fleet of letters from Mistry asking for advice on various issues, when that is the case, can it be argued that Tata suggesting a business idea for the cause of The company is false – is it Mistry's idea that the majority shareholder says nothing about the affairs of the company in which Trusts has the majority? "he said.
"Is there a single example in the history of the Tata group – the Mistry regime that Tata's board was directly put into action without going before the commission? At least, I'm not sure. I did not find such action that was not approved by the board of the respective companies with respect to the issues raised by Mistry.
"Tata runs the trusts that hold more than 66 percent in Tata Sounds, and by virtue of this majority according to the rule of democracy, these societies must be directed on the wish of the majority that are the Trusts directed by Tata ", he said
The court also reproached Mistry of "disclose" confidential information about the group to the IT department shortly after his departure as chairman.
He said his decision to send such information to the IT department, and to disclose other information sensitive to the business press release to the public
Two months after his ouster, Cyrus Investments, Mistry's family-owned company, and Sterling Investments Corp., pbaded the NCLT as a minority shareholder, against Tata Sons, Ratan Tata and some other members of the board of directors
. Two m later, Mistry was also dismissed as a director on the Tata Sons board
On July 9, the court dismissed Mistry's claims dismissing all of its claims under the Companies Act after ruling that all the allegations "Tata has not been part of the leadership since 2012. In any event, even if the facts are supposed to have happened, this can not become an allegation falling under the strike of section 241. (which allows a member of a corporation to claim compensation for mismanagement) of the Companies Act.
"To the contention that Tata's conduct caused harm to the petitioners or to the group, we did not find the petitioners' allegation to be useful, "he added, adding that the petitioner is free to stay away from the petitioners. to the civil courts for redress [19659019] (This story was not edited by Business Standard staff and is generated automatically from a syndicated feed). ]! function (f, b, e, v, n, t, s)
{if (f.fbq) returns; n = f.fbq = function () {n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply (n, arguments): n.queue.push (arguments)};
if (! f._fbq) f._fbq = n; n.push = n; n.loaded =! 0; n.version = 2.0 & # 39 ;;
n.queue = []; t = b.createElement (e); t.async =! 0;
t.src = v; s = b.getElementsByTagName (e) [0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore (t, s)} (window, document, & quot; script & # 39;
& # 39; https: //connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq (& # 39 ;, & # 39; 126483814725448 & # 39;);
fbq ("track", "Pageview");
[ad_2]
Source link
