TATA v MISTRY
Hearing to resume in Supreme Court today at 2 pm before a Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. Senior Counsel CA Sundaram to continue his arguments.
Track this thread for live updates.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
Hearing to resume in Supreme Court today at 2 pm before a Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. Senior Counsel CA Sundaram to continue his arguments.
Track this thread for live updates.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY
Bench assembles, hearing begins.
CA Sundaram continuing with his submissions.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
Bench assembles, hearing begins.
CA Sundaram continuing with his submissions.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY
My shareholding is 18.5 percent. It is 1.5 lakh crore according to us and 80k crore according to them: Sundaram
You don't worry about that. Your shareholding is large enough for us to what you: CJI SA Bobde.
My shareholding is 18.5 percent. It is 1.5 lakh crore according to us and 80k crore according to them: Sundaram
You don't worry about that. Your shareholding is large enough for us to what you: CJI SA Bobde.
TATA v MISTRY
Sundaram refers to counter filed by Ratan Tata in which Tata himself admits, according to Sundaram that Tata Sons is not a family company but a board managed company.
That is why it should not be considered as company managed by Tata Trusts: Sundaram.
Sundaram refers to counter filed by Ratan Tata in which Tata himself admits, according to Sundaram that Tata Sons is not a family company but a board managed company.
That is why it should not be considered as company managed by Tata Trusts: Sundaram.
TATA v MISTRY
Sundaram argues how Article 121 A was used by Tata Trusts to undermine the board.
NCLAT said Article 121A cannot be used by Tata Trusts to demand pre consultation. That is our argument - that TATA Sons should be a board managed company: Sundaram
@tatatrusts
Sundaram argues how Article 121 A was used by Tata Trusts to undermine the board.
NCLAT said Article 121A cannot be used by Tata Trusts to demand pre consultation. That is our argument - that TATA Sons should be a board managed company: Sundaram
@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY
The institution of independent directors was incorporated by way of 2013 Act to protect interests of minority shareholders: Sundaram
@tatatrusts
The institution of independent directors was incorporated by way of 2013 Act to protect interests of minority shareholders: Sundaram
@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY
It is not mandatory to have these independent directors whose statutory function is to look after interest of minority shareholders: Sundaram
#SupremeCourt #tatasons
It is not mandatory to have these independent directors whose statutory function is to look after interest of minority shareholders: Sundaram
#SupremeCourt #tatasons
TATA v MISTRY
Do you have any judgment which states pre-consultation will affect the independence of the board?
Sundaram: I dont have any judgment to that effect. It is my submission.
@TataCompanies
Do you have any judgment which states pre-consultation will affect the independence of the board?
Sundaram: I dont have any judgment to that effect. It is my submission.
@TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY
CJI Bobde: How does board's independence get affected due to pre-consultation?
Sundaram: On this case the pre-consultation is not advisory but to convey the decision of the concerned majority shareholder.
#SupremeCourt
CJI Bobde: How does board's independence get affected due to pre-consultation?
Sundaram: On this case the pre-consultation is not advisory but to convey the decision of the concerned majority shareholder.
#SupremeCourt
TATA v MISTRY
CJI Bobde draws comparisons with politics saying will a Chief Minister consulting with his party colleagues affect independence.
Sundaram: Politics is different from corporate world. The aim of political party is to come to power unlike that of a BoD.
CJI Bobde draws comparisons with politics saying will a Chief Minister consulting with his party colleagues affect independence.
Sundaram: Politics is different from corporate world. The aim of political party is to come to power unlike that of a BoD.
TATA v MISTRY
The directors primary duty is towards the board.
The role of shareholders is to elect the directors. Thereafter, it is upto the board to manage the company and shareholders cannot interfere: Sundaram
#TataVMistry #SupremeCourt
The directors primary duty is towards the board.
The role of shareholders is to elect the directors. Thereafter, it is upto the board to manage the company and shareholders cannot interfere: Sundaram
#TataVMistry #SupremeCourt
TATA v MISTRY
If due to mismanagement, money is being lost the majority also loses money: CJI Bobde.
It is not an excuse to mismanage the company - that not just you (minority) but we majority shareholder is also losing money: Sundaram
@TataCompanies
If due to mismanagement, money is being lost the majority also loses money: CJI Bobde.
It is not an excuse to mismanage the company - that not just you (minority) but we majority shareholder is also losing money: Sundaram
@TataCompanies
TATA v MISTRY
But can you say bad decision is mismanagement? CJI Bobde.
We were being stopped from taking decisions: Sundaram.
But can you say bad decision is mismanagement? CJI Bobde.
We were being stopped from taking decisions: Sundaram.
TATA v MISTRY
Sundaram concedes that NCLAT did grant a relief which was not prayed for (as regards reinstatement of Mistry as Executive Chairperson).
"I think the NCLAT went by the labour law principles," Sundaram says.
@tatatrusts
Sundaram concedes that NCLAT did grant a relief which was not prayed for (as regards reinstatement of Mistry as Executive Chairperson).
"I think the NCLAT went by the labour law principles," Sundaram says.
@tatatrusts
TATA v MISTRY
Some of the aspects in this case has really shocked us and we say it with utmost humility, remarks CJI A Bobde.
#SupremeCourt #tatasons #TataVMistry
Some of the aspects in this case has really shocked us and we say it with utmost humility, remarks CJI A Bobde.
#SupremeCourt #tatasons #TataVMistry
TATA v MISTRY
Conversion of company from public to private company after 2013 Act came into force was done by a stroke of pen by Registrar of Companies (RoC): Sundaram
#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #mistry
Conversion of company from public to private company after 2013 Act came into force was done by a stroke of pen by Registrar of Companies (RoC): Sundaram
#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #mistry
TATA v MISTRY
After the 2013 came into force, a public company to become private company should apply to NCLT for reconversion to private company: Sundaram
Tata Sons had become a deemed public company. It had to follow the procedure for reconversion: Sundaram.
After the 2013 came into force, a public company to become private company should apply to NCLT for reconversion to private company: Sundaram
Tata Sons had become a deemed public company. It had to follow the procedure for reconversion: Sundaram.
TATA v MISTRY
Bench rises for the day. Court will hear Senior Counsel Shyam Divan tomorrow.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies @RNTata2000
#SupremeCourt #mistry
Bench rises for the day. Court will hear Senior Counsel Shyam Divan tomorrow.
@tatatrusts @TataCompanies @RNTata2000
#SupremeCourt #mistry
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
