Acoording to the Supreme Court website, the petition ise tentatively listed on January 10.
The website also mentioned that Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd, Cyrus Mistry and other respondents have filed a caveat against the ex-parte order in the matter.
It was expected that the appeal against the National Company Appellate Law Tribunal decision would be mentioned for listing on Monday after the court reopened after the winter break. But, it was not mentioned.
The Tatas, in their petition, said the order by the NCLAT undermined corporate democracy, and also the rights of the board of directors.
During the pendency of the petition in the apex court, Mistry, in a statement on Sunday, said he is not interested in returning to the Tata Sons' chairmanship.
Mistry said: "To dispel the misinformation campaign being conducted, I intend to make it clear that despite the NCLAT order in my favour, I will not be pursuing the executive chairmanship of Tata Sons, or directorship of TCS, Tata Teleservices or Tata Industries."
He, however, targeted Tata Son's Chairman Emeritus Ratan Tata for "supporting brute majoritarianism" in corporate democracies.
"Recent media reports attributed to Mr Ratan Tata and others questioning the NCLAT judgment ahead of an important hearing in the Supreme Court, profess an interpretation of Corporate Democracy as being one of brute majoritarianism with no rights for minority stakeholders. The question in these legal proceedings is whether the oppressive actions of a majority that stifles minority shareholders is beyond reproach and outside judicial oversight," said Mistry.
Mistry had also questioned the conduct of the Tata group and asked them "to introspect".
"In the last three years, both in conduct and in their statements to the world at large, the Tata Group's leadership has shown scant respect for the rights of minority shareholders. It is time the Group's management introspects and reflects on its conduct as it embarks on future actions."
Mistry also hit out at Ratan Tata for "oppressive and prejudicial conduct".
"I am humbled by the NCLAT order, which after review of the enormous material on record, recognized the illegal manner in which I was removed and the oppressive and prejudicial conduct of Mr Tata and other Trustees."
( With inputs from IANS )