Supreme Court today in its order dismisses Shapoorji Pallonji group’s petition seeking review of apex court’s March 2021 judgment upholding Tata group’s decision to remove Cyrus Mistry as executive Chairman of Tata Sons.
“The plea has no merit. We are not inclined,” the bench of the Apex Court, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana said, in its order today.
Lawyer, Somasekhar Sundaram, for Cyrus Mistry’s (plea seeking removal of certain remarks for Judgement) told the Supreme Court that certain observations are necessary to be removed from the judgment. “I am seeking notice from the bench,” he told the Supreme Court bench.
Harish Salve, for the Tata group, said that this appears to be a stepping stone for review.
He requested the Supreme Court bench, headed by the CJI Ramana, that my lordships first hear the review matter first.
Sundaram sought to review and stated that the first judgment has brought in prejudice.
“Removal is a case of oppression,” Sundaram told the Supreme Court bench.
The Supreme Court, however, did not find any merit in Mistry’s prayers, and petition, and it dismissed his review plea.
The dispute was about the removal of Cyrus Mistry as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons in 2016. Thereafter, the investment companies of Mr. Mistry, Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd., and Sterling Investments Pvt. Ltd., which are shareholders of Tata Sons filed a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, alleging oppression and mismanagement of Tata Sons by Tata Trusts and Mr. Ratan N. Tata. However, the NCLT ruled against Mr. Mistry and dismissed all the said contentions.
The National Company Law Appellete Tribunal (NCLAT) had overturned the decision of the NCLT and it is against this judgment of the NCLAT that Tata Sons had moved to the Supreme Court which had allowed the appeal filed by Tata sons on March 26,.2021.
The review petition which was filed on Mistry on March 24, 2021, came up today in open court and was dismissed.
In a separate application for expunction of remarks, the Court has agreed to expunge certain remarks made against Mistry but has also directed that certain offensive paragraphs directed against the Court made in the application for expunction be deleted/withdrawn by Mistry.