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

News Snippets

  • Maratha quota bill likely to be tabled in Maharashtra assembly today
  • Arvind Kejriwal skips ED summons for the 6th time, says the case is in court and will follow court's decision
  • PM Modi says UP has gone from 'red tape' to 'red carpet' in 7 years of 'double engine' government
  • Farm unions reject government offers, to resume Delhi march from today
  • Centre says some Aadhar cards in Bengal 'deactivated' due to technical glitz, will be activated back soon
  • Supreme Court stays LS privilege panel summons to Bengal officials over BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar injury case
  • Supreme Court junks Sandeshkhali petition, says it cannot be compared to Manipur, asks petitioner to approach Calcutta HC
  • Supreme Court gets tough on Chandigarh mayoral elections, asks for ballot papers and video footage, does not order re-election
  • Government starts withdrawing old small tax demands, up to Rs 25000 per entry till FY 2009-10 and up to Rs 10000 per entry from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 with an overall ceiling of Rs 1 lakh per tax payer
  • Stocks remained positive on Monday: Sensex gained 281 points to 72708 and Nifty 81 points to 22122
  • Jasprit Bumrah likely to be rested for 4th Test while K L Rahul may be back
  • FIH Pro League hockey: India beat Spain 8-7 in shootout
  • SP leader Salim Sherwani, miffed at no Muslim candidate given RS ticket, quits party
  • Army going for big (Rs 57000cr) upgrade in combat vehicles to replace T-72 tanks
  • Mamata Banerjee says the BJP is doing nothing to resolve the Sandeshkhali dispute but instead fanning the fires to escalate it
History created in Supreme Court as Chandigarh mayoral poll ballots counted in court, judges declare AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner after taking into account the votes defaced by returning officer Anil Masih
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.