Live
- Air India Express row: 'Company leadership available for discussions', CEO says in letter to employees
- 'When will Shiv Sena-UBT merge with Congress', asks BJP & Shinde camp
- RBI lifts ban on Bank of Baroda's BoB World
- Youth should come forward for blood donation: District Medical Officer Dr. Sudhakar Lal
- Grand Farewell Day Celebrations in Government Degree College
- PM Modi holds roadshow in Vijayawada with Chandrababu Naidu, Pawan Kalyan
- Farmers should be alerted: District Collector Uday Kumar
- 95 more Myanmar refugees enter Mizoram to avoid 'forceful' induction in militant outfit
- Punish Congress for Pitroda's 'racial' comments: PM Modi
- RML Hospital bribery case: CBI books over 15 including 2 doctors
Ratan Tata asked Mistry to resign before ouster
Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus P Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote.
Mumbai: Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus P Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote.
In a para-by-para response to the petition filed by investment firms associated with Mistry’s family against his removal, Tata Sons, the holding company of the $103 billion conglomerate, told the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that Mistry was removed as Chairman on October 24 last year after “little or no signs of improvement” in his leadership.
Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for his replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interest director.
“Before the commencement of the board meeting of Tata Sons on October 24, 2016, Ratan N Tata and (director) Nitin Nohria personally spoke to Cyrus Mistry and offered Cyrus Mistry an opportunity to resign voluntarily as Executive Chairman. However, Cyrus Mistry refused to do so,” Tata Sons said in 204-page affidavit.
Stating that the decision was not taken suddenly or in haste, it said the removal “was the result of a chain of events that led to a growing trust and confidence deficit that had to be addressed without delay”.
The affidavit said Mistry was reluctant to accept and fully embrace the terms in the Articles of Association that spelled out the governance structure of Tata Sons and certain rights of the Tata Trusts and the Trust Nominee Directors, terms which he himself had participated in finalising.
The affidavit said: “This systematic dilution weakened the bind through which Tata values, ethos, governance principles, group strategies were to be implemented across the Tata Group companies”.
“In most of the cases, Mistry ensured that he was the only director who was common to Tata Sons and Tata Group companies. Effectively making himself the only ‘channel’ between Tata Sons and Tata group companies. Mistry’s actions were deliberately weakening the Tata Group structure which was inimical to Tata Sons’ interest and therefore, the mismanagement, if any has been perpetrated by Mistry.”
