Advertisement
During the proceedings, senior lawyer C A Sundaram appearing for Mistry family’s two investment firms said the Mumbai bench could have a cause of bias. “We are asked to go to a forum (NCLT Mumbai bench) which has already judged the issue,” he argued. However, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi opposed it, saying it was a case of “forum shopping”.
“This should be dismissed at the threshold. They have suppressed the facts. They have already raised twice before the NCLAT to transfer the case to Delhi and hear it,” Singhvi argued, adding that the appellate tribunal did not decide on it.
The investment firms in question are Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corporation Pvt Ltd. Last month, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) granted Mistry the waiver in the minimum shareholding rule for him to file a case of alleged oppression of minority shareholders after observing “exceptional” and “compelling circumstances”.
Related Articles
Advertisement
Mistry has been locked in a legal battle with the Tatas since his unceremonious exit as chairman of Tata Sons — the promoter company of the INR 6,722.34-billion car-to-software Tata group — in October last year. Mistry was ousted as Tata Sons chairman on October 24, 2016, and also removed as a director on the board of the holding company on February 6, 2017.
Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investments Corporation Pvt Ltd had moved the NCLT against Tata Sons after Mistry’s ouster last year alleging oppression of minority shareholders and mismanagement. However, on April 17, the Mumbai bench of the NCLT had rejected the waiver plea filed by the investment firms while on March 6, it had set aside the one over maintainability.
Following that, both the investment firms had moved the appellate tribunal. The NCLAT, however, dismissed another petition filed by Mistry family’s investment firms on maintainability, saying the firms do not have more than 10 percent in Tata Sons.