Mistry May Challenge Chandra’s ‘Illegal’ Appointment in Court
A day before Chandra’s appointment, Mistry wrote a letter to the board calling it an illegal action.
Cyrus Mistry, the former Tata Sons chairman has opposed Natarajan Chandrasekaran’s appointment as his successor and may even be willing to go to court challenging the decision, as reported by Economic Times.
The day before the Tata Sons board conferred to decide on Chandrasekaran’s appointment, Mistry shot off an angry letter to his fellow board members, challenging the appointment’s legality.
“Unlike the October board meeting when the decision to sack Mistry was not mentioned in the board agenda circulated before, this time the members were aware of what to expect. Mistry is still a director of Tata Sons and the agenda papers were circulated to him as well. That prompted the mail from him,” said an official aware of the communications.
Mistry was not physically present for the meeting the next day.
The details of Mistry’s possible legal strategy couldn’t be independently verified, but it could be the potential precursor for a fresh complaint before the court.
Mistry was ousted on 24 October 2016 and he has already challenged the decision in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). He has alleged the collusion of Tata Sons with Tata Trusts and the oppression of minority interests at the $103-billion conglomerate.
He has also alleged that the Tata Sons’ move to call an extraordinary general meeting on 6 February violated the undertaking given by its lawyers at NCLT in December.
In his letter to the board members on 11 January, Mistry argued Chandrasekaran’s appointment to be illegal, citing the matter was still sub-judice.
After getting a green signal from their legal advisors, the Tatas went ahead with the board meeting.
The Tata Sons Board meeting held on 12 January 2017 and the appointment of N Chandrasekaran as chairman of Tata Sons have been done as per the company’s Articles of Association and relevant laws.Tata Sons Spokesperson
Mistry’s close aides said he was uncomfortable attending the board meeting since the Tata’s had violated the undertaking they took in court.
No Mention of Chandra in Court
Tatas close aides argue that Mistry has no case as his petition before the NCLT only takes of his illegal ousting.
Mistry had also moved the court for contempt proceedings yet during the hearing, his lawyers didn’t cite Chandrasekaran’s appointment even once.
Mistry also moved for contempt proceedings, but in the contempt hearing, his lawyers did not mention Chadrasekaran's appointment even once. "He moved the contempt petition only for removal of a director, not for the appointment of a new chairman. His mail, therefore, is contrary to his own submission before court on Monday,” said an official, not wishing to be named.
(Source: Economic Times)
Subscribe To Our Daily Newsletter And Get News Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.