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

News Snippets

  • NCLT initiates bankruptcy proceedings against former Videocon chairman Venugopal Dhoot for defaulting on loans of Rs 6158cr as personal guarantor in two group companies
  • LIC approves 1:1 bonus share issue
  • Gold and silver futures also go down by 0.7% and 2.2% respectively
  • Stocks tumbled again on Monday as crude prices rose: Sensex went down by 703 points and Nifty by 207 points
  • Supreme Court refuses to cancel the land-for-jobs FIR against Lalu Prasad
  • The spectre of El Nino haunts India: IMD predicts 'below normal ' monsoon this year
  • Labour protest over increase in wages by 35% (as per Haryana example) turns violent in Noida, nearly 200 were detained by the police
  • Congress leader Sonia Gandhi said that the delimitation exercise must be carried out after the Census is complete
  • PM Modi says Parliament is on the verge of creating history as the Houses get ready to take up the women's reservation bills
  • Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekaran said that TCS COO Aarthi Subramanian is conducting a thorough inquiry to establish facts and identify individuals involved in the sexual harassment allegations at the company's Nashik office
  • Asha Bhonsle laid to rest with full state honours on Monday in Mumbai
  • AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal once again approached the Delhi HC to request the recusal of a judge from his case
  • Candidates Chess: R Vaishali on the verge of creating history, but needs two wins - one with black pieces - against formidable opponents to emerge as the challenger
  • Rohit Sharma, who retired hurt in the match versus RCB, underwent scans for possible hamstring injury
  • IPL: Abhishek Sharma fails for SRH but Ishan Kishan (91) shines. Then, Vaibhav Sooryavanshi fails for RR and SRH bolwers, especially unheralded Praful Hinge (4 for 24) and Sakib Hussain (4 for 24) win it for SRH. This was the first loss for table-toppers RR
Supreme Court questions Election Commission about SIR SOP and why logical discrepancy was introduced only in Bengal
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. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

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.