NCLAT admits petition against order
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal NCLAT on Wednesday admitted a petition moved by ousted Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus P Mistry seeking to set aside an order of a Mumbaibench of the company law tribunal upholding his removal
New Delhi: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday admitted a petition moved by ousted Tata Sons Chairman Cyrus P Mistry seeking to set aside an order of a Mumbai-bench of the company law tribunal upholding his removal.
In the July 9 order, a bench of NCLT Mumbai had dismissed Mistry's plea challenging his removal as Chairman of Tata Sons. Hearing the matter on Wednesday, the two members of the appellate tribunal, headed by its Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya admitted Mistry's petition, which he filed in his personal capacity.
The NCLAT also issued notices to Tata Sons and other respondents and asked them to reply in ten days. The matter will now be heard on September 24 along with the original plea filed by Cyrus Investments challenging Mistry's removal from Tata Sons. In his plea, Mistry also sought expunging of remarks and some words used in the July 9 order. Mistry had on Tuesday filed the petition in his personal capacity, requesting the appellate tribunal to set aside the impugned July 9 order of the National Company Law Tribunal.
Last week, on August 24, NCLAT passed an order over the petitions filed by the investments firm of Mistry family and directed Tata Sons not to force the companies to sell their shares in the Tata group firm. The appellate tribunal had admitted the petitions of Mistry's family-run firms and posted the matter for hearing on September 24. It has also said that issues related to conversion of Tata Sons' into a private company from a public limited company would be decided by it at later stage.
Besides change to a private company, the investment firms had in NCLAT challenged the move by the company to restrict shareholders from freely selling their stake and the Article 75 of the articles of association that can be used by the board to force a shareholder to sell out. "Taking into consideration the facts and that the appeal is pending and if the Appellants (investment firms) are forced to sell their shares which may affect the merits of the appeal, as they will cease to be member(s) of the company (Tata Sons).
"We direct the Respondents (Tata) not take any step-in terms of Article 75 for transfer of shares of minority shareholders like Appellants (Mistry) and others during the pendency of the appeal," the appellate tribunal had said.