Tata-Mistry verdict and other long-lasting battles within the Indian industry

NEW DELHI: While Tatas welcomes NCLT Mumbai's decision to reject the appeal of Cyrus Mistry for his dismissal as President of Tata Sons, today's development puts highlights the long, high-decibel battles that India Inc has witnessed.

Mistry, who was suddenly removed from his position as president of Tata Sons in October 2016, had contested his dismissal and raised allegations of rampant misconduct on the part of Ratan Tata and the board of directors of the society.

While baderting that "an appeal on the merits will be pursued", Mistry's opponent, Tata, who had retired as president of Tata Sons in December 2012, is a patriarch who "was there and did that".

In the '90s, while he was still young, the veteran industrialist had seen group satrapes like Russi Mody from Tata Steel, Darbari Seth from Tata Chemicals, Ajit Kerkar from Indian Hotels and AH Tobaccowala at Voltas.

While the Tata vs. Mistry was the newest heavyweight clash within the group, a walk in memory highlights the fact that they're not the only ones to have fallen so bad after having been together.

Ambani against Ambani

After the death of Dhirubhai Ambani – the founder of Reliance Industries, in July 2002, there was speculation that everything was wrong between his sons, Mukesh and Anil.

Rumors of quarrels between the Ambani brothers flew away until the older brother, Mukesh, confirmed on a television channel in November 2004 that there were "property problems" in the Reliance group.

What followed was a bitter exchange of allegations and counter-allegations by the media and culminated with the brothers who reached a settlement in June 2005 to divide the group's badets.

According to the family rules, negotiated by their mother Kokilaben, Mukesh took control of the flagship Reliance Industries, and IPCL with interest in oil and gas, and textiles.

On the other hand, the younger brother Anil got Reliance Infocomm, Reliance Energy, Reliance Capital with a presence in telecommunications, electricity, financial services and entertainment.

Even after the split, the two brothers continued their quarrel over several cases, particularly in the field of gas and telecommunications.

Finally, in May 2010, they agreed to bury their differences and create an environment of harmony, cooperation and collaboration between their groups to eliminate any possibility of further conflict.

Co-founders of Infosys v Council

Infosys was at the center of controversy last February when co-founders NR Narayana Murthy, Nandan Nilekani, and Kris Gopalakrishna reported what they said were failures in corporate governance. business.

Their concerns were related to the steep salary increase of the then CEO, Vishal Sikka, and a significant severance pay to former CFO Rajiv Bansal and Attorney General David Kennedy, as well as doubts about the acquisition of Panaya.

The board of directors of the company, chaired by R Seshasayee, vehemently opposed the campaign launched by the co-founders, particularly Murthy, whose letters to the board of directors Administration are most often relayed by the media.

Finally, last August, Sikka, the first non-founder CEO of Infosys Ltd, resigned abruptly citing "continued badault" and Murthy's "campaign".

R Seshasayee, Jeff Lehman and John Etchemendy also resigned from the board of directors, while Nandan Nilekani returned as Non-Executive Chairman of Infosys.

Earlier this year, in January, Salil S Parekh was appointed the company's new general manager and general manager.

Bank Yes: Kapoor vs Kapur

The Mumbai terrorist attack in November 2008 left a lasting impact on the future of Yes Bank, one of the country's private banks.

About a year after the badbadination of co-founder Ashok Kapur during the attack, a rift began to appear between his family and Rana Kapoor, the other co-founder, about the appointment of the director to the board of directors of the company.

Madhu Kapur, widow of Ashok, wanted her daughter Shagun Kapur Gogia to be appointed director, but the Yes Bank board of directors rejected the proposal on the basis of eligibility criteria of RBI.

In 2013, Madhu Kapur and his family moved the Bombay High Court against Rana Kapoor seeking the right to appoint a director to the bank's board of directors citing the bank's bylaws while challenging the appointment of Mr. Srinivasan and Diwan Arun Nanda. non-executive directors.

A protracted legal battle followed and in June 2015 the court ruled in his favor. The court had made RBI part of the battle of the board of directors.