“We still claim that we do not want Mistry to be reinstated as Tata Sons’ executive chairman,” SP group lawyer CA Sundaram told a bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.
Mistry was fired as chief executive in 2016, apparently because of his differences with his predecessor, Ratan Tata, who remained the company’s emeritus president.
Chief lawyer Sundaram said Tata Sons is not a family business for the largest shareholder, Tata Trusts, to dictate the agenda and get involved in every major decision.
“The majority shareholder I can’t say my road or highway. The interests of all shareholders, especially the minority group, must be protected. The differences arose and led to redundancies, mainly because Mistry opposed the Tata Group’s agreement with Corus, which made losses and continued with nano car project that bled the company, “he said.
The bank said these were not examples of oppression by the majority group. “It is not about the fact that these transactions were designed to make the minority group lose money. If it was a loss, then it hurt both the majority and the minority shareholders alike “, he said.
Sundaram said he supports exactly this point, that a council must ensure the protection of all stakeholders.
Sundaram said Tata Sons was a public company that carried the hopes and aspirations of countless shareholders whose investments needed protection through prudent decisions.
“If Tata Trusts believes that Tata Sons needed a Tata or a person with Tata family ties to run the company or get involved in decision-making, then Cyrus Mistry has it too. His sister is married to Ratan Tata’s stepbrother, Noel Tata, “Sundaram said.
The SP group’s argument that it does not seek to reinstate Mistry as Tata Sons ‘executive chairman led the IJC-led bank to resume its comments on January 10 during the first hearing of Tata Sons’ appeal against NCLAT’s order to reinstate Mistry in the position of executive chairman and conversion of the joint stock company into a joint stock company.
“We are completely surprised by some legal aspects of this case. Does NCLAT have the powers to reinstate Mistry as chief executive when this is not even sought? He doesn’t seem to have any powers. Even a civil court does not have powers of attorney. This is the most amazing part, to bring Mistry back to the position of executive president when he was not even wanted “, said the bank.
The arguments will continue on Wednesday.