Tata Sons-Cyrus Mistry case: NCLAT dismisses RoC petition to modify order
Cyrus Mistry-Tata Sons case: The NCLAT said that the December 18 judgment has no aspersions cast against it and that there's no ground to amend judgment
- Jan 6, 2020,
- Updated Jan 6, 2020 5:42 PM IST
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday refused to modify its judgment passed in the Tata-Mistry matter and dismissed the petition filed by the Registrar of Companies (RoC). A two-member bench headed by Chairman Justice SJ Mukhopadhyaya dismissed RoC's plea.
The NCLAT said that the December 18 judgment has no aspersions cast against it. "There is no ground to amend judgment dated December 18, 2019," said NCLAT.
In the December 18 order, the NCLAT reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Chairman of Tata Sons. The NCLAT said that his removal was oppressive and the appointment of N Chandrasekaran in his position was illegal. The order asked Tata Sons not to take any action against Mistry whose family owns 18 per cent in Tata Sons.
Tata Group had moved Supreme Court against the NCLAT order and sought a stay. They took the matter to the court after the SC reopened after the Christmas and New Year holidays. On January 3, Ratan Tata also moved the Supreme Court in his personal capacity against the order. He said that that the order held him guilty of oppressive and prejudicial steps against the interests of Tata Sons shareholders without explaining the factual or legal foundation grounds.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday refused to modify its judgment passed in the Tata-Mistry matter and dismissed the petition filed by the Registrar of Companies (RoC). A two-member bench headed by Chairman Justice SJ Mukhopadhyaya dismissed RoC's plea.
The NCLAT said that the December 18 judgment has no aspersions cast against it. "There is no ground to amend judgment dated December 18, 2019," said NCLAT.
In the December 18 order, the NCLAT reinstated Cyrus Mistry as the Chairman of Tata Sons. The NCLAT said that his removal was oppressive and the appointment of N Chandrasekaran in his position was illegal. The order asked Tata Sons not to take any action against Mistry whose family owns 18 per cent in Tata Sons.
Tata Group had moved Supreme Court against the NCLAT order and sought a stay. They took the matter to the court after the SC reopened after the Christmas and New Year holidays. On January 3, Ratan Tata also moved the Supreme Court in his personal capacity against the order. He said that that the order held him guilty of oppressive and prejudicial steps against the interests of Tata Sons shareholders without explaining the factual or legal foundation grounds.