oppn parties The Tatas Versus The Mistrys: Time Now For A Clean Separation

News Snippets

  • EMI's set to rise after the RBI hikes key policy rate
  • Calcutta HC says that the right to privacy does not end with the death of a person
  • Supreme Court says that a delayed order of preventive detention makes it invalid
  • Shashi Tharoor posts an erronous map of India in his manifesto, rectifies the error after criticism
  • Sonia Gandhi to take a call on who will be Rajasthan chief minister
  • Mallikarujun Kharge to be the new candidate to oppose Shashi Tharoor in the Congress presidential elections
  • RBI says that the September inflation rate may be higher than 7%
  • RBI hikes key rates by 50bps, downwardly revises FY23 growth rate to 7% from 7.2% earlier
  • Stocks recover well on Friday: Sensex gains 1016 points to0 57426 and Nifty 276 points to 17094
  • Mirabai Chanu wins gold easily at the National Games
  • In a first, the Supreme Court recognizes marital rape, although for the limited purpose of allowing married women the right of abortion up to 24 weeks if they conceived as a result of forced sex by their husbands
  • Air India cuts discounts on base fare to students and senior citizens from 50% to 25%
  • Mallikarjun Kharge and Digvijay Singh are being touted as frontrunners to take on Shashi Tharoor in the elections for the post of Congress president
  • Sonia Gandhi will decide who will be Rajasthan CM if she feels there is a need to change guard after the near-rebellion by MLAs in the state
  • Ashok Gehlot bowed out of the race for being Congress president after meeting Sonia Gandhi
RBI hikes key rates by 50bps, stocks jump and recover 50% of the losses incurred in the last few session
oppn parties
The Tatas Versus The Mistrys: Time Now For A Clean Separation

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-03-30 06:00:42

About the Author

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

In 2016, the Tata Sons board removed Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of the group in a majority decision. Aggrieved, Mistry approached the NCLT which dismissed his petition. But he got relief in NCLAT which reinstated him and termed the appointment of his successor N Chandrasekaran as illegal. The Tatas approached the Supreme Court against the NCLAT order which has not put the controversy to rest by setting aside the NCLAT order.

The matter before the Supreme Court involved the removal of Cyrus Mistry, the appointment of N Chandrasekaran, the oppression of minority shareholders, conversion of Tata Sons into a privately-held company, mismanagement at Tata Sons and valuation of shares of Tata Sons.

By rejecting the NCLAT order, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that neither Mistry's removal nor the appointment of Chandrasekaran was illegal. In fact, the court made a pertinent observation when it said that since the door through which Mistry got in (was appointed chairman) was the same from which he was asked to exit, how can he rail against the door for removing him when he had no qualms about entering through the same door? The court said that since both decisions were made by a majority of the board, there was nothing illegal about them.

The court also held that there was no mismanagement and oppression of minority shareholders, as alleged, at Tata Sons. The court also rejected the plea against allowing the company to go private. This decision is likely to benefit many other widely-held companies that are planning to go private. But the court refused to value the shares of Tata Sons and said that it should be decided between the parties. This issue is likely to linger as the Tatas have valued Mistrys' 18.4 percent stake at around Rs 70000-80000cr while the Mistrys' claim it to be Rs 1,75,000cr.

Since the boardroom battle will see a closure after the Supreme Court order, both parties need to come to an understanding regarding the valuation to arrive at an amicable settlement for a clean separation. It is now clear that the Mistrys need to separate from the Tatas for the good of both. If the valuation issue is not settled, this will not be possible. Hence, since the Supreme Court has refused to value the shares, both parties should sit across the table and find a middle ground. The Tatas should now show magnanimity by ensuring that the Mistrys  get a fair return on their investment (linked to present market value) and the Mistrys must accept a fair offer even if it is slightly less than what they have in mind.