SC to hear Pallonji group review plea in Tata-Mistry row: Story so far

The Supreme Court has decided to hold a oral hearing following a review petition by Shapoorji Pallonji Group against the verdict dated March 26, 2021 in the legal dispute between Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry. The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, in a two-to-one ruling listed the matter for hearing on March 9.

CJI Ramana and Justice Bopanna allowed the applications seeking oral hearing of the review petitions and exemption from filing affidavits.

However, Justice Ramasubramanian dissented. “With utmost respect, I regret my inability to agree with the order. I have carefully gone through the Review Petitions and I do not find any valid ground to review the judgment. The grounds raised in the Review Petitions do not fall within the parameters of a review and hence the applications seeking oral hearing deserve to be dismissed.”

Abhishek Singhvi, the senior counsel of Tata group, stated that they had received information that the review petition has been kept for oral hearing. He added that it is totally wrong to say, as has been suggested in some sections, that the review petition has been either admitted or allowed.

"Nothing of that sort has happened. The court on March 9 would only have an oral hearing to consider what further should be done in the review petition. It would not be advisable to speak about this matter further since it is sub judice and coming on March 9, 2022," he said.

Tata Sons and Cyrus Mistry had been engaged in a bitter battle in courts since the latter’s ouster. Mistry took over as Tata Sons’ chairperson in December 2012 but was removed from the post by the board of directors in October 2016. During an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) in February 2017, shareholders too voted for Mistry’s removal. N. Chandrasekaran was appointed as the chairman of Tata Sons.

Two Shapoorji Pallonji firms, who held stake in Tata Sons, moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) over Mistry’s removal, alleging oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement. The tribunal dismissed the appeal in July 2018, following which the matter was raised in the appellate tribunal.

In December 2019, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had termed the Tata Sons’ board proceedings in October 2016 removing Mistry as the chairman as illegal, reinstating him to the position. Both Tata Sons and Shapoorji Pallonji Group had challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court. The former claimed that the appellate court granted reliefs outside the Shapoorji Pallonji Group’s plea by reinstating Mistry and terming Chandrasekaran’s appointment illegal.

The Shapoorji Pallonji Group stated in their appeals that the NCLAT failed to give certain crucial reliefs to Mistry. They prayed that Mistry should be entitled to representation in all committees formed by the board of Tata Sons. It also contested placing the right to affirmative vote with certain directors of Tata Sons that allows them to override the entire board.

In its March 26, 2021 judgement, the Supreme Court had set aside the NCLAT order. The top court had also answered all legal questions in the dispute in favour of Tata Sons, bringing the dispute with Mistry to an end. The bench of then Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and Justices Bopanna and Ramasubramanian had allowed the appeals by Tata Sons challenging the NCLAT order and dismissed the appeals filed by Cyrus Mistry and Shapoorji Pallonji Group.