oppn parties Tatas Versus Cyrus Mistry: NCLAT Ruling Bad In Law

News Snippets

  • India's sovereign green bonds were oversubscribed four times as the RBI received 266 bids worth Rs 32892cr agaisnt the target of Rs 8000cr
  • Google tweaks its Android and India app store policy to allow manufacturers and users to choose certain things instead of compulsorily using Google apps after the CCI order and fine for unfairly dominating the market
  • Former US secretary of state calls former Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj a "goofback" and a "hinterland political hack". MEA S Jaishankar slams him
  • Jamia screening of BBC documentary on Gujarat riots cancelled after the university was turned into a fortress and later 13 students were detained by the police
  • Supreme Court grants conditional interim bail for eight weeks to Lakhimpur Kheri accused Ashish Mishra. The bail can be further extended based on his conduct. He was asked to stay outside Delhi-NCR and UP and surrender his passport
  • After the JNU administration tried to thwart the students from screening the BBC documentary on the Gujarat riots and PM Modi, now students of Presidency and Jadavpur universities in Kolkata have decided to screen it 5 times next week
  • While a US research frim Hindenburg says its analysis found the Adani group overleveraged and claimed that its bubble will burst very soon and that sent the price of group companies crashing (Adani companies lost a combined Rs 55000cr), Adani group said the report was 'baseless' and 'malicious'
  • This time Enforcement Directorate arrests TMC spokesperson Saket Gokhale under PMLA for money laundering
  • Padma awards announced on Republic Day: Mulayam Singh Yadav, architect Balkrishna Doshi and ORS pioneer Dilip Mahalanobis get Padma Bibhushan posthumously, Padma Bhushan ius awarded to Kumar Mangalam Birla and 8 others and 91 get Padma Shri
  • Stocks fall big time on Wednesday on F&O expiry, finalncial and banks take big hit: Sensex tumbles 773 points to 60205 and Nifty 226 points to 17892 even as the market volatility meter shoots up by 8.51%
  • World Cup hockey: Germany stun England 4-3 to reach semifinals; Netherlands beat Korea 5-1 to enter last four
  • Australian Open: Sania Mirza and Rohan Bopanna reach the finals
  • Suryakumar Yadav is named ICC Cricketer of the Year 2022 and Renuka Singh gets the ICC Emerging Cricketer of the Year 2022 award
  • BCCI gets a whopping Rs 4670cr in the auctions for the 5 teams in WIPL or as it will be known now, WPL. Adani Sportline gets Ahmedabad for Rs 1289cr while Mumbai Indians get Mumbai for 913cr
  • Calcutta HC overturns the hookah bar ban in Kolkata by saying that it is not an illegal trade
India Commentary Wishes A Happy Republic Day To All Its Readers /////// India Commentary Wishes A Happy Basant Panchami And Saraswati Puja To All Its Readers
oppn parties
Tatas Versus Cyrus Mistry: NCLAT Ruling Bad In Law

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-12-22 16:29:49

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

Why do promoters wish to retain over 51% stake in a company? The simple reason is that they wish to have a controlling stake. Having invested hugely in a project, no promoter would like the management to slip out of his or her control for the reason of taking others on board as minority shareholders. There are several rules and regulations that take care of the fact that promoters cannot take such minority shareholders for granted and their interests are protected by law.

If now, as the NCLAT ruling in the Tata-Cyrus Mistry case has shown, regulatory bodies choose to override majority shareholders and prevent them from running the company by removing or appointing officers as per discussions in a board meeting, the very concept of majority voting and corporate ideology would lie in shambles. It would prevent other family-run companies (which form the majority in India) from appointing anyone to a position of trust. This, in turn, would work to the detriment of the company, and in the long run to the detriment of the economy as a whole, as the best available talent will not get the job as companies will be scared of complications later.

This is not to say that the majority shareholder can trample upon all laws, rules and regulations or the ethics of good corporate governance in doing so. But if they are empowered to do a certain act and if it benefits the company (and by that token the minority shareholders), they should not be prevented from doing so on technical objections.

It seems the NCLAT is taking itself more seriously than is mandated by law. Instead of interpreting the provisions of the applicable laws, the Tribunal has, of late, taken it upon itself to 'make' laws, choose to give an entirely different meaning to some provisions or even grant extra reliefs to petitioners. In the Essar case under the IBC, it had ruled that operational creditors were at par with financial creditors and tried to downplay the primacy of the Committee of Creditors. The Supreme Court took it to task for both the rulings. In this case, too, it has unnecessarily reinstated Cyrus Mistry as chief of Tata Sons.

When the case will come before the Supreme Court, the NCLAT is sure to get verbal and written whiplashing from the honourable judges there. It is clear that the Tribunal is regularly exceeding its brief. The NCLAT can always have its own interpretation of a particular provision. A difference of opinion in interpreting a provision is normal. But making laws and granting more than prayed for is not. The Supreme Court must explain the limits to the NCLAT and ask it to stay within them in the future.